Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give an assurance that it is still the intention of the British Government to give support to the French plan for the general supervision of arms under the Disarmament Convention?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I would refer the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) on the 11th December.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that we still adhere to the French plan, and have not withdrawn from it at all?

Mr. EDEN: I do not know what the hon. Member understands by the French plan. Perhaps he will turn up the speech of my right hon. Friend on the 7th November. The position there stated is the position now.

Mr. COCKS: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that we stand by the principle of general permanent supervision?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Member would not mind turning up the speech of my right hon. Friend he will find it more clearly stated there.

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any international consideration has been
given to the advisability of raising under Article 213 of the Treaty of Versailles the question of the present position of German armaments?

Mr. EDEN: No. Sir; not so far as I am aware.

Mr. MANDER: Does that mean that it has not been raised by France?

Mr. EDEN: As far as we are aware, it has received no international consideration.

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the advisability, in the diplomatic negotiations on the subject of disarmament which are now taking place, of putting forward, on behalf of this country, proposals which would include the abandonment of all the weapons forbidden to Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, including tanks and heavy mobile artillery; a return to the original five-year plan of the British draft convention without a probationary period; budgetary control; and an all-round supervision of armaments?

Mr. COCKS: 8 and 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is in a position to make a statement upon the course of the supplementary and parallel conversations taking place on the subject of disarmament;
(2) whether His Majesty's Government's declared policy in favour of regulated disarmament includes any measure of re-armament for Germany?

Mr. EDEN: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) on the 11th December.

Mr. MANDER: Would not a policy of this kind be better than a policy of drift?

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE).

Mr. RANKIN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent negotiations between the British and French Governments for a mutual arrangement to stimulate week-end tourist traffic by the elimination of passports?

Mr. EDEN: The French Government have recently inquired whether French tourists holding week-end tickets available for live days from Friday to Tuesday will be allowed to proceed to London, without passports, on a basis of reciprocity. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that, for some time past, French tourists holding weekend tickets to Channel ports, available for five days from Friday to Tuesday, have been admitted without passports, and no objection has been raised to their proceeding to London after the purchase of a ticket at the port of arrival. In the circumstances, my right hon. Friend is informing the French Government that His Majesty's Government are glad to enter into an arrangement by which British and French holders of these weekend tickets will be allowed to continue their journey to Paris and London respectively without passports.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is any record kept of these foreign people who come into this country: and is some precaution taken to see that they eventually go back again?

Mr. EDEN: That is a matter for the Home Office.

Brigadier-General NATION: Are the Government considering any general abolition of passports, as was the case before the War?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will be in a position to indicate to this House the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the reform of the League of Nations?

Mr. COCKS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the declaration of the Fascist Grand Council of Italy upon the subject of the League of Nations; and whether he can state the attitude of His Majesty's Government to any proposed alterations in the character and constitution of the League?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot add anything at present to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on this subject on the 11th December.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will my hon. Friend make an announcement to the House as soon as possible?

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid I could not indicate when it would be in the public interest to make a statement.

Mr. COCKS: Will His Majesty's Government set its face against any attempt to sabotage the League?

Mr. MANDER: Cannot the Government associate themselves wholeheartedly with the French declaration of policy in regard to support of the League of Nations? Are they not able to do that?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will approach the Government of the United States of America with a view to ascertaining what are the chief objections to-day of the American Government to membership of the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: No. Sir. My right hon. Friend regrets that he does not consider such a step would be either desirable or profitable.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it the case that the chief deterrent, as far as the United States are concerned, lies in the sanctions of the Covenant? Would it not be possible for the Government to explore that aspect of the question?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH CLAIMS (MR. JOSEPH MARTIN).

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will invite the Soviet Government to reconsider the case of Mr. Joseph Martin, with a view to compensating him for alleged wrongful imprisonment and injury?

Mr. EDEN: No. Sir; an assurance was given in this House, in reply to a question on the 12th July, 1932, that in any further negotiations relative to personal claims entered into with the Soviet Government, Mr. Martin's claim would receive due consideration. I regret that I cannot usefully add anything to that reply.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that, at the date when Mr. Joseph Martin was imprisoned, military operations were being conducted by this country against Russia? Was there not an actual conflict at the time?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information on that question.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: That is not a reason for blinding a man and refusing to pay compensation.

HON. MEMBERS: He might be killed.

LENA GOLDFIELD COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proportion of the stock, holdings, or debentures of the Lena Goldfield Company, Limited, are held by British, German and American nationals, respectively?

Mr. EDEN: Inasmuch as the company's stock consists in part of bearer shares and notes, it is impossible to state the precise proportion of the total stock held in any one country. The bulk of the stock, however, is known to be held in Great Britain.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Deutsche Bank actually hold more than 50 per cent. of the total stock of this company, and does he think that His Majesty's Government should continue to act as debt collectors for German banks and German investors?

Mr. EDEN: I do not understand that the hon. Gentleman's information is correct.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Soviet Government's holding is in excess of the total British holding in the Lena Goldfield Company, Limited; and does he still think that a trade agreement which will give employment to large numbers of people in this country ought to be held up by a matter of this kind?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the Lena Goldfield Company, Limited, is a British company, and the British Government are responsible for its protection, whoever may be the individual shareholders at any given time?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Ought this country's interests to be subordinated to the collection of money for German people?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SUBMARINE L 26 (EXPLOSION).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the cause of the explosion of battery gases in L 26, after grounding off the Mull of Kintyre, has been ascertained?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I regret that I cannot yet give a reply, as the findings of the Court of Inquiry and Court-Martial are still under consideration.

AIRCRAFT.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of aircraft carried on naval craft other than aircraft carriers; and whether it is intended that aircraft shall be carried as equipment on new naval craft of cruiser and heavier tonnage?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: 21 aircraft are now carried in cruisers and battleships. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Captain BALFOUR: May we understand that aircraft are now standard equipment in these vessels?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No. Sir; they are not considered as an integral part of the ship.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

INDUSTRIES.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDE-MAN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to how many Palestinian industries have been established since the mandate; how many of these are Jewish enterprises and how many Arab; and whether there are Arab directors on any Jewish company?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have asked the High Commissioner for Palestine whether he can supply the information desired, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I receive a reply.

ORANGE PLANTATIONS.

Mr. CURRY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the percentage increase in the orange plantations in Palestine, owned and cultivated by Arabs, for the period 1922–32?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am asking the High Commissioner for Palestine to supply the desired information, if it is available, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I receive a reply.

EXPORTS.

Mr. JANNER: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total value of exports from Palestine, exclusive of re-exports, for the years 1922 and 1932, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Excluding re-exports, and also exports in transit and specie, the figures are:—

£


1922
…
…
…
1,330,171


1932
…
…
…
2,381,491

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COLONIAL REPORTS.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will arrange to publish the Annual Colonial Reports in a more concise form at more frequent intervals, in order that the reports may be more useful to British exporters to the Colonies?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have recently invited various representative bodies to offer observations on the form and contents of the Annual Colonial Reports, and also with regard to the frequency with which they should be issued. I am now considering the matter in the light of their remarks, but I have not yet reached a decision as to what changes, if any, it will be desirable to make.

Mr. GIBSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, owing to the fact that these reports are issued so infrequently, when they come into the hands of exporters the information is out of date and of very little use? If they were issued more frequently, they would be much more useful.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I have taken the most practical step in
consulting a large number of trading bodies interested as to what recommendations they would make. I should be sorry to come to a decision without having an opportunity of considering all their recommendations.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 45.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of looms operating in the Lancashire cotton mills in 1930 and at the latest date on which figures are available?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): According to "The Lancashire Textile Industry" published in April, 1933, the total number of looms installed in the Lancashire cotton mills was 601,750; the corresponding figure for 1930 is 703,878.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

GOLD MINING CLAIMS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of alluvial claims and reef or lode claims registered, respectively, with reference to the gold-mining area in Kenya Colony during each month of this year; and will he specify the number of claims in native reserves and on lands allotted to Europeans, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The information is not in my possession; the Governor is being asked to supply it.

LAND COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the Morris Carter Commission on the land question in Kenya was received by him; how long it has been under consideration; whether it is now in the hands of the printers; and whether, in view of the urgency of the question, he will expedite the publication by having it printed in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The signed Report reached me in typescript in the middle of September. I have given it such preliminary examination as is possible, and have had a conversation with the Governor, who was on leave, on the subject. It is not practicable to
consider what action is required until the printed copies are available and the Government of the Colony has had time to formulate its opinions. The Report is now being printed in Nairobi, and, as I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on the 9th November, I do not expect printing to be completed before February next. I have urged expedition. There are obvious advantages in carrying out the printing of a very complicated document, with its attendant maps, in the place where most of its authors are available for reference. I had, indeed, considered the question of printing in this country, but was advised that little, if any, time would be saved, especially as I hope to arrange for simultaneous issue here and in Nairobi.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the Report will be published in this country by February?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I cannot absolutely promise a date, but it will be a little later than that. It will be out of the printers' hands some time in February, and then it has to reach this country.

JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.

Major MILNER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the committee set up to investigate the question of judicial procedure in Kenya Colony has yet reported; and when the Report will be published?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received the Report. I propose to publish it when I have received the considered views of the Governors concerned upon the recommendations.

Major MILNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when that time will arrive?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I do not think I can. It is obviously desirable that the Governors should have an opportunity of considering the matter in great detail, and possibly considering it at the Governors' Conference, while I should like to have an opportunity of discussing it with them when I go out to East Africa in January.

Oral Answers to Questions — OCEAN ISLAND (PACIFIC PHOSPHATE COMPANY, LIMITED).

Major MILNER: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what terms the concession to export the guano phosphates from Ocean Island was held by the concessionaire company before it was bought out; what profits accrued to the shareholders during the latest year for which statistics are available; what amounts were paid out of the profits during that period to the Gilbert Islands treasury and the natives of Ocean Island, respectively, whether in royalties or in rent; and on what terms native labourers are now employed to dig and ship the phosphates, and whether they enjoy any Government protection?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The licence granted in 1902 to the Pacific Phosphate Company, Limited, provided for a royalty of 6d. per ton upon all exports of guano and other fertilising substances. From 1912 onwards the company paid an additional royalty of 6d. per ton for a trust fund to be used in the interests of the islanders. Particulars of the profits made or distributed by the company, whose operations were not confined to Ocean Island, are not on record in the Colonial Office. The native labourers on Ocean Island, in common with other British subjects, enjoy full Government protection. I do not know the actual wages to the native labourers but there is a minimum rate fixed by law. The other information requested is not available.

Major MILNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire and let me know?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It would take a good time to get the information, but I could write and inquire.

Major MILNER: Many very serious allegations have been made of the exploitation of the phosphates in these islands and the very great mineral wealth there of which the natives are receiving no portion. Would the right hon. Gentleman get all the information he can on the subject?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will endeavour to obtain the information, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in supposing that the natives get nothing. In my main answer I said that in 1912 the company paid additional
royalties for a trust fund for the benefit of the islanders and that there is a minimum wage rate fixed.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: What prospect, if any, is there of bringing those British phosphates into this country, where hundreds of thousands of tons of foreign phosphates are used annually?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AIR SERVICES (NEWFOUNDLAND).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any progress has been made with regard to establishing an air route across the Atlantic by this country, Canada and Pan-American Airways?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I regret that there is little to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on the 19th July last. The examination of possible routes is proceeding.

BRITISH AND GERMAN FLYING-BOATS.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the chief characteristics of the German Dornier Wal flying-boat, built for the Berlin-Rio air service, and the largest flying-boat now in the service of Imperial Airways, respectively?

Sir P. SASSOON: My information is that the 1932 standard type of Dornier Wal (two-engined)—the only type of which I have reliable particulars—has accommodation for 10 to 14 persons, a range of 700 miles with full load, and a maximum speed of 136 miles an hour. The corresponding figures for the four-engined British Short "Scipio" are 22 persons carried, 740 miles range, and 127 miles an hour. I understand that the 1933 type of Dornier Wal embodies a considerable advance on the 1932 type, but no definite details are yet available.

CUSTOMS FACILITIES.

Mr. ALBERY: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what Customs facilities are now available at the Gravesend Aerodrome?

Sir P. SASSOON: No Customs facilities are available at Gravesend Aerodrome at the moment, but I understand that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have informed the aerodrome proprietors that they are prepared to make special arrangements there, subject to certain conditions, for the Customs clearance of aircraft with passengers and their personal baggage.

Mr. ALBERY: Will this new arrangement be made in the near future?

Sir P. SASSOON: I believe the Customs have already communicated with the aviation companies. I cannot say more for the moment.

Captain BALFOUR: Do the conditions imposed by the Customs include a minimum revenue to be guaranteed by the aviation companies?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think I can say more than that they have already-been in communication.

Mr. ALBERY: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, with a view to encouraging the development of air ports in the United Kingdom, he will take steps to secure the granting of adequate Customs facilities for clearing aircraft entering from abroad wherever this is reasonably possible without undue expense?

Sir P. SASSOON: The Commissioners of Customs and Excise, with whom my Department is in close touch, are prepared to afford facilities for the Customs clearance of aircraft at suitable aerodromes, at which the volume of traffic will justify this action.

Mr. ALBERY: Will the right hon. Baronet impress upon the Treasury the need for granting such facilities as far as possible and at as early a date as possible?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, certainly. Of course, it depends to a certain extent on the amount of traffic that comes to and fro.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the right hon. Baronet not aware that traffic cannot be encouraged if Customs facilities are refused?

GERMAN AIRCRAFT.

Mr. LEVY (for Mr. HANNON): 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for
Air whether his attention has been called to the design of certain German aeroplanes now used by the Luft Hansa Company in operating the service between Croydon and Berlin; and, seeing that such machines are rapidly convertible into air bombers, what steps he proposes to take to ensure that no violation of the Treaty of Versailles has occurred?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have no ground for believing that the aircraft to which my hon. Friend refers are equipped for other than commercial use, or that their design involves a violation of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

CRANWELL COLLEGE.

Captain BALFOUR: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many officers of the rank of flight-lieutenant have passed through the Royal Air Force Cadet College, Cranwell, as compared to the total number of officers of that rank, and when under the normal rate of promotion the first of these officers will be promoted to squadron leader?

Sir P. SASSOON: The present strength of flight-lieutenants is 806, and of these 193 entered through the Royal Air Force College. None of the latter has yet reached the stage at which they can normally expect promotion to squadron leader, and I regret I cannot undertake to forecast the actual date when the first promotions will be made.

EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.

Captain BALFOUR: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state the types of civil aircraft ordered by the Air Ministry for their own development or utility purposes during the present year; if further types are still to be acquired; and, if so, will he give particulars of these?

Sir P. SASSOON: Two civil aircraft of experimental type—a four-seater gyroplane and a high-speed float-plane—have been ordered by the Air Ministry during the present year. I regret that at present I can give no information as to the ordering of any further types.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. GUY: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to minimise the danger of road accidents?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the nature of the steps the Government are contemplating to secure greater control and discipline on the part of all classes of road users; and whether he will make an early statement on the subject in view of its importance to the motor industry?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which was given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray), of which I am sending them copies.

Mr. GUY: When the hon. Gentleman is formulating a policy on this question, will he aim at raising the standard of care of all road users?

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to make this statement?

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot give a definite date, but I hope it will be an early one.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the stiffening of the penalties?

Mr. STANLEY: I shall consider all relevant matters.

HIGHWAY CODE.

Mr. GUY: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the issue of a revised edition of the Highway Code; and will he endeavour to secure greater publicity for it amongst the general public?

Mr. STANLEY: I propose in some respects to revise the Highway Code and I agree with my hon. Friend that when the Code has been revised steps should be taken to secure a wider knowledge of its provisions.

SPEED INDICATORS.

33. Mr. G. MACDONALD: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider
the advisability of making compulsory, at the earliest possible date, the use of an indicator, at the back of every motor car or lorry, of such a size and design as could be clearly read, and indicating the speed of the motor car or lorry?

Mr. STANLEY: I regret that there are a number of mechanical and other objections to the hon. Member's suggestion which render it impracticable.

Mr. MACDONALD: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that in so far as speed is a factor in road accidents, such a device would be helpful?

Mr. STANLEY: If it was practicable, it might. If it is not practicable, it cannot.

HEAVY MOTOR TRANSPORT (POLICE METHODS).

Mr. PIKE: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is caused amongst drivers and owners of heavy motor transport at the methods adopted by the auxiliary police; and if he will receive representatives of owners and drivers, particularly in the provinces, on the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): If by auxiliary police my hon. Friend refers to the motor patrols, the methods which they may adopt to enforce the law are the responsibility of the chief officer of police concerned. If it is desired to make any representations on the subject, it would be convenient to have them made to me in writing, and I should certainly give them my consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

Mr. GROVES: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that in the London area alone there arc 80 separate agencies for the distribution of electricity, he proposes to take steps to implement the work of the Central Electricity Board in the generation of electricity by establishing a similar unity of control by amalgamation or otherwise for the distribution of electricity, so as to enable the benefit of the board's grid-power system to be passed on to the domestic consumer?

Mr. STANLEY: The possibility of improving the organisation of the distribution of electricity is naturally a subject which is engaging my attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

POLICE (GAZETTE).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received the views of the police authorities in Scotland as to the publication of a police gazette on the same lines as that issued by Scotland Yard; and what decision has been arrived at?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have now received the views of 20 of the 48 Scottish police authorities on this matter. No further action will be taken until replies have been received from the rest of the authorities.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it not high time that the other authorities sent their reports to the Minister?

Sir G. COLLINS: I hope to receive their reports shortly.

BARLEY.

Mr. STUART: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among Scottish barley growers, especially in the northern and north-eastern counties, regarding the present condition of the market for barley for distilling purposes; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part. I have to-day constituted a committee representing farmers, distillers and grain merchants, with an independent chairman in order to ascertain all the facts relating to this subject and to obtain guidance as to the steps, if any, that can be taken to meet the situation in the way most advantageous to all the parties concerned. The committee's terms of reference are to inquire into and report upon the supply of and demand for Scottish barley for use by Scottish distilleries, and to make recommendations regarding the steps, if any, that can be taken by the growers and distillers concerned for the purpose
of improving the quality and condition and methods of sale of such barley so as to facilitate its use by such distilleries.

Mr. STUART: When is the committee likely to meet?

Sir G. COLLINS: I hope very shortly.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING.

Mr. THOMAS RAMSAY: 39 and 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether, in view of the increase of illegal trawling, he will arrange for fast naval boats to be sent to the waters of the Western Isles and the West Coast of Scotland to protect the livelihood of the inshore fishermen, or whether he will arrange for the commission of suitable fast mercantile or other boats to police the, said waters;
(2) if he will take immediate steps to establish a national civil sea-police service, using fast and efficient boats equipped with wireless, searchlights, and range-finders, and manned by officers and crews of experience, to capture alleged law breakers in territorial waters; and whether he will strengthen this force by a sea flying-squad available for rapid action on call by telegraph, telephone or wireless?

Sir G. COLLINS: As indicated in my reply last Wednesday to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), the question of reorganisation of the patrol arrangements is now being examined, and in that connection my hon. Friend's suggestions will be borne in mind. Emergency steps have already been taken to strengthen the patrol on the West Coast.

Wing-Commander JAMES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that illegal scringing by fast motor boats from places like Oban is very much on the increase, and that the police have no means whatever of coping with this evil?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for drawing my attention to that matter. We shall bear it in mind.

Mr. RAMSAY: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Broad Bay, Isle of Lewis, is one of the best breeding grounds for white fish in the United Kingdom; that vessels which enter it ostensibly for shelter
frequently participate in illegal trawling on the way out; whether he is aware that on and from the 28th November vessels have almost nightly been trawling in the bay without lights and with concealed names and numbers; that on the 28th November one local fisherman was ordered to pull up his lines by a trawler, which was dropping its trawl within half a mile from the shore; and what steps he is taking to put a stop to this practice?

Sir G. COLLINS: As regards the first part of the question, I am advised that, while Broad Bay is a good fishing ground at certain seasons, it is not a particularly notable breeding ground. I am, however, fully alive to the necessity for giving the utmost possible protection to the local fishermen in this as in other areas; and experimental arrangements for patrol of the area have been specially put into operation.

MEDICAL SERVICE (WESTERN ISLES).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in connection with the Highlands and Islands medical service, he has received a report on the air-ferries ambulance for the Western Isles; and whether he is going to meet this urgent need for the people in the Western Isles?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): This matter has been investigated, and arrangements are being made to give assistance from the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Fund in cases of need and emergency towards costs incurred on the hire of aeroplanes to remove persons from the Highlands and Islands to central hospitals. The Department of Health are also in communication with the county council of Argyll as to the possibility of organising such a service for any parts of the county, including the islands where conditions permit.

Mr. T. RAMSAY: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons which actuated the late Socialist Government in evacuating the island of St. Kilda was the heavy cost of removing patients to the mainland; and is he also aware that the representations which have been made to the Scottish Office by the local people through their own representative, the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. T. Ramsay), has always been in the
direction of more efficient hospital service, with transport of patients to the mainland only in very exceptional circumstances?

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL (DISTRESSED AREAS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what benefit will accrue to Dumbarton and Clydebank as a result of the concessions made to the local authorities in distressed areas?

Mr. SKELTON: It is estimated from the provisional amount of the Distressed Areat Grant payable to the Burghs of Clydebank and Dumbarton that as a result of the concession in question the contributions to be made by these burghs towards the cost of relieving the able-bodied poor under the Bill will be reduced by about £1,535 and £340 respectively, which equals a rate reduction of more than 1d. in the first case and more than ½ d. in the second.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows something about being "broke," is it not a fact that, in view of this great concession of a halfpenny and a penny in the pound which he is giving us, the Bank of England, though it may not be "broke," may be bent?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that under the Unemployment Bill the City of Glasgow will have to find £442,000 annually, whereas Birmingham will only pay £40,000; and what steps the Government propose to take to prevent this operating to preclude new industries being established in Glasgow and so relieving unemployment in that city?

Mr. SKELTON: As regards the first part of the question I am unable to give precise figures. As regards the second part, in so far as high local rates might act as a deterrent to the establishment of new industries, then as the ratepayers of Glasgow will benefit materially from the provisions of the Bill its effect should be in the opposite direction to that indicated by the hon. Member.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that, instead of unemployment decreasing in Scotland, it is increasing? While it is
true that all round there are 30,000 fewer unemployed this month, in Scotland there are 8,000 more unemployed, and that this will mean added taxation which will act detrimentally to the West of Scotland; and what is the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland going to do about it?

Lieut.-Colonel C. MacANDREW: Can my hon. Friend say what advantage Scotland will get out of the extra concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Monday night?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: A half-penny in the pound.

Mr. SKELTON: The extra relief will be some £36,000.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Since in Glasgow a rate of a penny in the pound produces £40,000, will the hon. Gentleman say how it will reduce taxation in Glasgow when you only give £36,000 for the whole of Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: My hon. Friend is discussing another matter. The £36,000 refers to the special concession which was dealt with the other night. My hon. Friend's question does not deal with that at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Mr. BURNETT: 46.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the rate of subsidies paid by the principal maritime Powers to their mercantile fleets?

Dr. BURGIN: I am sending my hon. Friend the information at my disposal.

Mr. MACLEAN: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the chartering, on 7th December, of two Dutch steamers to load timber and grain in British Columbia for the United Kingdom in January, 1934; and, in view of the fact that these two ships have been laid up at Amsterdam since 6th September, will he state what action he is taking to defend British shipping by concerted action with the Dominions or otherwise?

Dr. BURGIN: I have seen a report to this effect in the Press. The second part of the question raises issues of policy which are under consideration.

Mr. MACLEAN: As this matter of policy in regard to the sale of vessels has been under consideratoin by the Board of Trade for a considerable number of years, can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to when they are likely to arrive at a decision?

Dr. BURGIN: think that that matter might possibly be raised in the Debate which is to occur this afternoon.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the decision be given in the reply of the Minister in that Debate?

Dr. BURGIN: That rests with the President of the Board of Trade.

The number and gross tonnage of steam and motor vessels, of 100 tons gross and above, registered under Part I only, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, at ports in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, which were recorded as employed in the foreign trade at some time during the years 1931 and 1932, respectively, and the number of British, foreign and lascar seamen employed therein were as follow:


Year.
Vessels employed.
Seamen employed.


Number.
Tons gross.
British.
Foreigners.
Lascars (British subjects and Foreigners).
Total.


1931
…
…
2,999
16,465,445
118,020
14,846
55,373
188,239


1932
…
…
2,788
15,426,147
109,361
11,837
52,117
173,315


Note. —Foreign trade includes vessels trading beyond the limits of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Irish Free State, the Channel Islands and the Continent of Europe between the River Elbe and Brest. Under the heading "Lascars" are included Asiatics and East Africans employed under agreements for natives of Asia or East Africa, which open and
terminate in Asia.

Mr. MACLEAN: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and net tonnage of sailing and steam, including motor, vessels on the register of the United Kingdom which were sold to foreign countries in the years 1931 and 1932, respectively?

Dr. BURGIN: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the answer includes the amount of tonnage sold for use as well as the amount of tonnage sold for breaking-up purposes?

Dr. BURGIN: The statement which I propose to circulate gives the number and the net tonnage of vessels registered at ports in the United Kingdom sold to foreigners. It does not differentiate between use and breaking up. It is the mere question of sale.

Mr. MACLEAN: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and tonnage, net or gross, of registered steam, including motor, vessels belonging to the United Kingdom and employed in foreign trading in the years 1931 and 1932, respectively, and the number of persons employed therein during each of those years, distinguishing between British, foreign and lascars?

Dr. BURGIN: As the answer is long and includes a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Can not we have the figures now, as they do not seem to involve a long answer?

Dr. BURGIN: It is the custom when a number of figures are involved, and for the convenience of the House, to circulate them.

Following is the answer:

The number and net tonnage of vessels registered at ports in the United Kingdom, the registers of which were closed during the years 1931 and 1932 on account of sale to foreigners, were as follow:

Sailing Vessels.





No.
Tons net.


1931
…
…
19
1,373


1932
…
…
14
772




Steam and Motor Vessels.





No.
Tons net.


1931
…
…
198
364,709


1932
…
…
181
388,680

Oral Answers to Questions — FORCIBLE REMOVAL (MRS. BROAD).

Sir W. DAVISON: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the forcible removal to a lunatic asylum of a sane woman from her home in Bedford Park, West London, by servants of the Middlesex County Council, who refused to verify her statement that her name was not that of the person they stated they had been ordered to remove; and whether he will set up a committee to inquire into the whole question of the removal and detention of persons alleged to be insane, and to make recommendations with a view to preventing such mistakes in future?

Mr. McENTEE: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Broad, who was forcibly removed from her home and confined in a mental hospital and was afterwards found to have been mistaken for another person living at a different address; and, in view of the public concern at the possibility of persons being removed and detained in such institutions to-day, if he will set up a public tribunal to inquire into the existing regulations and to suggest such new safeguards as will prevent any arrest and detention of sane persons in future?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The occurrence has been reported to my right hon. Friend by the Middlesex County Council, who are the authority primarily responsible in the matter. The whole circumstances are being investigated by the Council, and the result of the investigation will be reported to him without delay. My right hon. Friend must consider this report before he decides what action on his part is desirable.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that no written particulars were given to the officers of the Middlesex County Council who were instructed as to the removal of this patient, and that they were instructed by telephone; and will he suggest to the Middlesex County Council, or whoever is the authority, that it is very undesirable that matters of great importance of this kind should be ordered by telephone without written instructions, and, indeed,
whether it would not be possible for the officer certifying a person as mentally deficient to be present so as to identify the patient?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As I stated in the answer, the precise facts are under inquiry, but I think I can say that, if the facts as represented in the Press are true, after due inquiry has been held, the whole House will desire to join my right hon. Friend in expressing deep concern and regret that an incident of such a grave nature should have taken place.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUAN ALAND.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the representatives of the Native Chief Tshekedi, now in this country, have been received by him or have submitted material in connection with this case; and whether he has yet reached any definite opinion as to the verdict given in this case?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Mr. Buchanan has discussed informally with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and with the officials of the Dominions Office certain matters relating to the Bechuanaland Protectorate. It has been explained, however, that any representations regarding any matter relating to the Protectorate which the Acting Chief Tshekedi may desire to make should be submitted to the High Commissioner for South Africa through the Resident Commissioner of the Protectorate.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES (for Mr. MORGAN JONES): 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, apart from local officials, persons with experience of native administration, especially in Tanganyika, were consulted in the drafting of the Bechuanaland Proclamations?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir. In drafting these Proclamations the laws in force in other British African Dependencies were fully considered, and the local Administration also had the benefit of the advice of Mr. Tagart, formerly Secretary for Native Affairs in Northern Rhodesia.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CELANESE WORKS (DISCONTINUED PROCESS).

Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: 61.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet received a report on the cause of the deaths of five workmen at the British Celanese Works at Spondon?

Sip J. GILMOUR: Investigations are actively proceeding, but they may take some time as difficult medical and technical questions are raised. My Department will pursue their inquiries as rapidly as possible and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I can usefully do so. As he will be aware, inquests are still pending.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a decision has yet been reached in regard to compensation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLADYS BAYNES (DISAPPEARANCE).

Mr. H. JOHNSTONE: 62.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Miss Gladys Baynes, of 12, Hardwick Street, South Shields, has been missing since the middle of October from her situation at Dane's Court, Longdown Lane, Epsom Downs, Surrey; what the results of the police inquiries have been; and whether he will cause further inquiries to be prosecuted with a view to allaying the anxiety of Miss Baynes's parents?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This matter had not previously come to my notice, but I have made some inquiries. It appears that Gladys Baynes was engaged as a domestic servant at Epsom on 27th September, her services having been obtained through an agency in South Shields. On 13th October she was left in charge of the house during the temporary absence of her employer who, on returning home about 5 p.m., found that Gladys Baynes and her belongings had disappeared. At the request of the South Shields police inquiries have been made and a description has been circulated in the Metropolitan Police District, but hitherto without result. The girl is 21 years of age; there is nothing to suggest that her departure was other than voluntary; and it
does not appear at present that any further action can usefully be taken by the police.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Having regard to the fact that the girl's parents are suffering grave anxiety on account of her disappearance and as nothing is known to indicate whether she took steps to disappear voluntarily, cannot further inquiry be made, as it is impossible to believe that the inquiries that have been made have resulted in no traces being found, the girl being a complete stranger in the place and very noticeable in consequence?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no reason to suppose that the police are not taking every step in their power to ascertain her whereabouts.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 63.
asked the Home Secretary if he will include in the forthcoming Bill to regulate the hours of labour for young persons employed in the distributive trades provisions requiring the payment of minimum rates of wages?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The provisions to be included in the Bill have not yet been finally settled, but I may say that it is not intended to include any provision relating to wages.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the Committee of inqury did recommend the inclusion of a provision of this kind?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the very low wages which have been disclosed from time to time in connection with the payment of these young people, will the right hon. Gentleman consider very seriously whether he cannot put something into the Bill to deal with the wages of these girls?

Oral Answers to Questions — CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

Mr. PIKE: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that cooperative societies throughout Great Britain are now supplying large quantities of milk to school children in sealed bottles for one penny; that the purchasers are not members of the society and that no dividend is payable by the society upon these purchases; if he will state by what method the receipts from such sales are separated from the general returns
of the society; and if, in view of the increase of such sales, he will consider the application of a special revenue tax upon them?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I have no information in the matters to which my hon. Friend refers, but I would explain that any profits arising from such sales would, of course, be included in computing the society's liability to Income Tax in accordance with the provisions of Sections 31 and 32 of the Finance Act, 1933.

Mr. PIKE: In view of the fact that the local education authorities are responsible for the purchases of milk from the societies, are the local authorities entitled to use the money for any specific purpose they lay down, and, if not, will the Minister take into consideration a reduction of the amount equal to that received in dividend when the Education Vote is taken'?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot follow what it is that my hon. Friend wants. The co-operative societies are assessable to Income Tax now on exactly the same basis as private concerns.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman know that thousands of mothers in this country are still supplying milk free of charge, and does he propose that they should be taxed for that reason?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No. Sir. Presumably, mothers have always supplied milk free of charge, and will continue to do so.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. Member aware that this milk is supplied to the children on a humane basis, without profit, and that the co-operative societies are rendering a great service?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: They are performing the ordinary industrial service of selling.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL AND CHILD ASSURANCE.

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether and, if so, when it is intended to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendation made in the Report of the
Committee on Industrial Assurance and Assurance on the lives of children under 10 years of age [Cmd. 4376.]

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not yet in a position to say when action will be taken on this report.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (POLITICAL MEETINGS).

Mr. ALBERY: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that local excise officials have demanded the payment of Entertainments Duty on tickets sold for a political meeting; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of this demand?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not aware that payment of Entertainments Duty has been demanded in respect of any purely political meeting but if my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the case he has in mind, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the hon. Member aware that wide publicity was given to this meeting in one daily newspaper?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Provided the meeting is political, it is not an entertainment. Entertainments Duty is payable provided that the band costs more than 2d. to hear.

Mr. ALBERY: I do not know whether the meeting was purely political, but the daily newspaper referred to is; it is the "Daily Herald."

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENTS.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the representations from municipalities in Lancashire or other bodies favouring legislation to the effect that agreements which have been entered into by organisations of employers and employed in the cotton trade or in other industries should be made obligatory upon all engaged in the industry concerned; and whether the Government will consider the introduction of legislation on the lines of the Industrial Councils Bill introduced as a private Member's Bill last Session?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer the right
hon. Member to the statement made in the House on 29th November by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board that any joint representations made by employers' and operatives' organisations in the cotton industry would receive our sympathetic consideration. As regards general legislation such as that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman there are wide differences of view among employers' and employés' organisations and among the joint industrial councils themselves as to the desirability of such legislation.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the Minister favourably consider other organisations besides the cotton industry, such as newspapers?

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (WAGES).

Mr. G. MAC DONALD: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour the total wages paid in the cotton industry in 1920 and in 1932, respectively?

Mr. HUDSON: I regret that information is not available as to the total wages paid to workpeople in the cotton industry in 1920 and in 1932. Some information bearing on the wages paid in 1924 and in 1930 is given in the final report on the Census of Production, 1930

Oral Answers to Questions — NURSING HOMES.

Sir JOHN HASLAM (for Sir ALFRED LAW): 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will call for reports from local authorities in London on the condition of the nursing homes registered with and inspected by them, with a view to ensuring that registered medical nursing homes are housed in hygienic premises suitable for modern therapeutic requirements and staffed by certificated nurses?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The fitness of the premises and the suitability of the staff are factors to be taken into consideration by the local supervising authority before agreeing to register an applicant in respect of these premises under the Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1927. As a decision on this matter is under the Act a matter for the local authority subject to an appeal to the courts, my right hon. Friend does not think that he would be justified in calling for reports, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind he will be ready to make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH (STAFF).

Mr. MAITLAND (for Sir WILFRID SUGDEN): 53.
asked the Minister of Health the reasons why writing assistants employed in his Department have, without previous knowledge of clerical class duties, recently been promoted after three months' trial to the established general clerical class; and is he aware that such persons are now being trained in their new duties by ex-service "S" Class clerks?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Writing assistants who are considered to possess potential capacity for promotion to the clerical class are eligible for promotion thereto subject to a trial period of three months in accordance with an agreement reached on the Departmental Whitley Council. Twelve such officers satisfactorily completed this trial period as far back as 1931, but, owing to contraction of staff, their promotion has unfortunately had to be deferred until a recent date. These officers are not being trained in their new duties by "S" Class clerks.

Mr. MAITLAND (for Sir W. SUGDEN): 54.
asked the Minister of Health what redundant staff in his Department since October, 1931, has been transferred to other Departments; if he will explain the circumstances by which it has been possible to make a large number of promotions; what actual number have been made in each grade and at what cost to the State in the first year; and what the cost to the State would be in the first year of promoting a similar number of "S" class clerks to the established clerical class?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The number of redundant staff transferred to other Departments since October, 1931, is 319. A number of promotions have been made to higher grades partly to fill vacancies caused by retirement and partly to meet additional work appropriate to those grades. My right hon. Friend will send my hon. Friend a statement showing the number of promotions made in each grade and the cost, and also the cost which would have been incurred had it been possible to promote a similar number of "S" Class clerks to the Established Clerical Class.

Mr. MAITLAND (for Sir W. SUGDEN): 55.
asked the Minister of Health the latest published figure of the complement
of clerical officers, exclusive of audit clerks, required for his Department; what is the total number of clerical officers at present employed in his Department; and what is the actual number of "S" class clerks employed in his Department who are performing the same duties as clerical officers employed in the same sections?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The number of clerical officers provided for in the Estimates for my Department in the current year, excluding the Welsh Board of Health and audit clerks, is 1,617. The total number at present employed is 1,571. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to answer the last part of the question pending a review of the duties performed by the "S" class clerks in the different sections of my Department which is now proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSIONER).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES (for Mr. MORGAN JONES): 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has considered the advisability of separating the office of High Commissioner to the Government of the Union of South Africa from that of administrator of the Protectorates under the British Government?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In both his capacities the High Commissioner is responsible to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and it does not appear to me that there would be any special advantage in separating the two offices.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (TRAINING CENTRES).

Mr. HEPWORTH: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the statistics in the possession of his Department show that trainees from the training centres under his control actually obtain employment subsequent to training; and, if so, to what extent and in what industries?

Mr. HUDSON: As regards the training centres at which a six months course is given in certain trades (including building, furnishing, vehicle building, engineering and allied industries and miscellaneous trades) about 83 per cent. of the
men who completed the course have found employment, usually in the trade in which they had their training. From the domestic training centres for women administered by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment under a grant from my Department, 97 per cent. of the girls trained have been placed. As regards instructional centres, I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for the Gower Division (Mr. D. Grenfell) on 16th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY (FINANCIAL FACILITIES).

Commander COCHRANE: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make any further statement regarding the progress of the negotiations for ending competition between the Cunard and the White Star Lines, and whether the Government are now able to assist in the completion of the suspended Cunard liner No. 534?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am glad to say that these difficult and complicated negotiations, conducted with great good will on all sides, have reached a stage at which the Government feel justified in assuming that an effective merger of the North Atlantic fleets of the Cunard and White Star lines will become an accomplished fact at an early date. It is the intention of the Government in that event shortly to lay before the House proposals for furnishing the necessary financial facilities for the completion of the new Cunard liner known as No. 534.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give us any indication when work will be resumed on the 534, now lying in Clydebank in my constituency?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give a definite statement because certain preliminaries have to be effected, not only the proposals to which I have already alluded, which will have to come before this House, but the consent of secured creditors in each of the two cases will have to be secured; but I hope that as everybody is anxious to get on with the work as soon as possible the commencement will not be unduly delayed.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is there any possibility, as the House rises next week, of the Bill being introduced before Parliament rises so as to give some encouragement and hope to those who have been dismissed owing to the stoppage of work, rather than having to wait until the House resumes next January?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will not be possible to introduce the Bill before the House rises, but the other necessary steps can be proceeded with in the meantime.

Sir ALFRED BEIT: Will any reference be made in the proposals to the possible construction of a sister ship?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We had better wait for the proposals.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: May I ask whether the question of the fuel to be burnt has been a matter of negotiation between the Government and the company concerned?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into that question now.

Oral Answers to Questions — DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL,

"to amend and make permanent the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920," presented by Mr. Runciman; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Dr. Burgin; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

ANTI-DUMPING.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the importation of foreign-made goods unless certain conditions are complied with.
Some 18 months ago we changed our long-established system of Free Trade for a system of tariffs, and it cannot be denied that so far the results have been beneficial. Not only have we derived considerable sums in revenue, but during this year over half a million more unemployed have been found work; and this at a time of world-wide depression. Satisfactory as this result is, we find that although varying duties have been imposed on foreign imported goods there is still an enormous volume of foreign-made
goods being dumped in this country and sold at prices out of all proportion to the cost of manufacture, goods which the British workers can make themselves—goods which are produced by our foreign competitors where hours of employment and the standard of living are such as would not be tolerated in this country. Therefore, with these facts in mind, I am asking the House to give me leave to bring in this anti-dumping Bill—a Bill which will prevent dumping, will further protect our home market and find more work for the unemployed. It may be argued, why not increase the duties. If the duties were increased to 100 per cent. it would not prevent this dumping.
The House will observe the wording of the Notice of Motion, "a Bill to prohibit the Importation of foreign-made goods unless certain conditions are complied with." What are these conditions? They are simple, and in my opinion will be effective. I claim the indulgence of the House while I state the suggested conditions. Foreign made goods will be prohibited from entry unless the exporter can satisfy the Customs officials that the goods imported will not be offered for sale at a price lower than the market or selling price of such goods in the country of origin. To arrive at the market or selling price of such goods in this country consideration must be given to any depreciation of currency in the rate of exchange or subsidy by the Government of the country of origin. The onus of proof that the conditions under which such goods can be admitted are complied with, is to rest on the exporter in the country of origin, who will be called upon to give an undertaking to that effect.
There are many trades which are adversely affected by the dumping of foreign-made goods, and in some cases by currency manipulation or some form of subsidy in the country of origin. Take the jewellery trade, for instance. Last year there was a duty of 30 per cent. placed on imported foreign-made jewellery, which was reduced, unfortunately for the Birmingham jewellers, in the subsequent trade agreement with Germany. To overcome this reduced duty the Germans introduced what is known as a sperrmarks. I do not pretend to know the German language, but I am given to understand by those who
do that the sperrmark is a special currency which can be purchased by Germans, and that it acts as a subsidy and enables the Germans to undersell in our markets. This Bill will put a check to that practice.
Then take the pottery trade. There is a duty of 30 per cent. on all imported pottery. Yet imports for July, 1933, were twice as much as in the corresponding month of 1932. This Bill will check that, and will give the pottery makers of this country a fair chance, and provide work for more men in North Staffordshire. I noticed in to-day's paper the account of a deputation which waited on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Of course I do not know exactly what was said, but I understand that they complained of the unfair foreign competition. In fact I believe they produced and showed to my hon. Friend imported teapots that were actually being sold at 1s. a dozen. When I read of that I could not help feeling what a pity it was that that deputation had not been arranged for to-morrow, when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary might have replied to the deputation, "Well, a backbencher, the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke) asked leave yesterday to bring in a Bill to put that matter right." I think he would have been able to tell them that if the Bill was passed it would do away with all their difficulties.
I suppose that the cotton industry is about the worst sufferer from this dumping. Foreign competitors are able to flood our markets with cotton goods at ruinous prices, and this dumping accounts for the large amount of unemployment in Lancashire. The Bill will materially help to bring the cotton weavers back to their looms. I hope to have the support of Members in all parts of the House for the Bill, but if I may single out any particular hon. Member I should mention my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), because he brought a practical illustration of our difficulties to the House last week when he produced foreign pencils which are sold in this country at 1d. a dozen, though they could not be made in this country to sell at less than Id. each. No tariff would keep out those goods. This Bill would put a stop to that kind of
dumping and would give a chance to the British makers of pencils.
Perhaps I have said enough to justify me in asking leave to bring in the Bill. I will simply add that British Dominions, Colonies and mandated territories would be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. I feel that the country would benefit greatly if a Bill of this kind were placed on the Statute Book. I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the provisions of the Bill. I freely admit that if the Bill became law there might be repercussions, but I am convinced that on balance the advantage would he with this country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Hannon, Captain Strickland, Mr. Salt, Colonel Broadbent, Mrs. Copeland, and Major Procter.

ANTI-DUMPING BILL,

"to prohibit the importation of Foreign-made goods unless certain conditions are complied with," presented accordingly, and read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 30th January, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. GALBRAITH: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further and better provision as to the status of adopted children and of their relatives by adoption, for the purposes of the enactments relating to workmen's compensation.
The object of this simple Bill is to remedy a defect in the Adoption of Children Act of 1926 which has been disclosed by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in this country. That defect is this: Whereas an adopted child in Scotland obtains the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, in England the adopted child does not. Let me explain shortly how that very curious state of the law has arisen. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1925, where a workman suffers a fatal injury in the course of or arising out of his employment, and leaves behind him members of his family dependent upon his earnings, those dependent members of his family are entitled to compensation as provided by the Act. The words "members of his family" are used in
the Act in a popular sense, and are defined to include, in addition to children both legitimate and illegitimate, father or mother, grandfather or grandmother, brother or sister, stepson or stepdaughter, half-brother or half-sister.
Before the year 1926 there was no provision on the Statute Book of this country-enabling children to be adopted. Before that year there had been many attempts made to get a Statute of that kind passed, but they had all failed. In the year 1926 I was fortunate enough to win the first place in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and I then introduced into this House a Bill which had been annexed to the Schedule of the Report of an inquiry dealing with this matter, which had taken place and was known as the Tomlin Report. The Bill was most cordially received by Members in all parts of the House. It passed its Second Reading without opposition and then it was adopted by the Government of the day, the Prime Minister of which was the present Lord President of the Council, and with the unanimous approval of the House it passed through its various stages and became law.
I think I am entitled to say that that Act has proved a complete success and has been made use of by an increasing number of persons in all ranks and walks of life in the population. In 1930 an Act on similar lines was passed for Scotland and while that Measure was passing through Committee some ingenious person, out of the abundance of his caution, inserted in the operative Section—which states what is to be the effect of an adoption order—a provision that for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1925 an adopted child should be treated as if it were the natural child of the adopting persons. Under that state of the law the case which has caused the present difficulty arose.
The facts are shortly these. In 1932 a workman and his wife who lived in the north of England adopted a child under the Act of 1926. Eighteen months later the man suffered an accident as a result of which he died. His widow made a claim for herself and the adopted child under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The county court judge of Durham, sitting as an arbitrator under the Workmen's Compensation Act, decided that both the widow—there was no question
with regard to her of course—and also the adopted child were entitled to compensation. That decision was based on two grounds, first, that the effect of the Act of 1926 was to make the adopted child, for all purposes, the child of the adopting persons and secondly, that the adopted child had in any case become a member of the workman's family. The Court of Appeal rejected both these contentions and it is interesting to note, having regard to the high reputation of Scottish logic and of Scottish economy even in words, that two members of the Court referred to the fact that it had been found necessary to insert in the Scottish Act the provision that an adopted child should be treated as the child of the adopting persons for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was argued that a similar provision must have been omitted from the English Act by inadvertence. That is the state of the law and I think the House, generally, will agree that it is quite absurd that the law should be different in this respect as between the two countries. I ask for leave to introduce this simple Bill for the purpose of making the law the same in both countries and thus remedying another injustice to England.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Galbraith, Sir John Withers, Mr. Stuart Bevan, Mr. Cope, Mr. Dingle Foot, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Maitland, and Sir Richard Meller.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION) BILL,

"to make further and better provision as to the status of adopted children and of their relatives by adoption, for the purposes of the enactments relating to workmen's compensation," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

SHIPPING INDUSTRY AND SHIPBUILDING.

3.55 p.m.

Dr. LEECH: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave concern the present depression in the shipping and shipbuilding industries due largely to uneconomic State-assisted foreign competition, and urges the Government to take immediate steps to assist and defend these vital and important industries.
It is due to the luck of the Ballot that I have the honour and privilege of addressing the House this afternoon on a subject of grave concern, namely, the precarious position of one of the most vital industries in this country, the industry of shipping and shipbuilding. When I made my maiden speech in this House some two years ago I ventured to describe the area from which I come—Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North East Coast—as a stricken area. I said that it presented to me, as it did to every other observer, a picture of tragedy, exemplified by smokeless chimneys, empty workshops, and tied-up tonnage. If that was the picture presented by Tyneside two years ago, unhappily it is the picture present by Tyneside to-day; and, coming from that area, I make no apology for bringing before the House the subject-matter of this Motion. The Motion is very wide and embracing in its terms and the industries concerned are full of complexities and difficulties. I do not, however, propose to occupy much time in presenting the Motion because I know there are many hon. and right hon. Members of the House who are deeply interested in this subject and who desire to take part in this discussion. It will suffice, therefore, if I briefly commend the Motion to the House.
I think it can be said that the shipping industry of this country in the past occupied a position of pre-eminence. Our position in that respect was due to the inventive genius of our race, the skilled craftsmanship of our workmen and the enterprise of our people generally and it was, indeed, a great tribute to us that in the days when things were prospering in comparison with the state of affairs existing to-day, all our great manufacturing areas, and notably Newcastle-upon-Tyne, contained a cosmopolitan population. All nationalities practically were represented in that city and in other cities which were
centres of shipbuilding and shipping. It was, as I say a tribute to us to find that we had those people with us. But what a contrast to-day. To-day, in those centres we no longer find that cosmopolitan population. The foreigners have learned our methods and perhaps our secrets and now the skill of the Britisher is the skill of the foreigner, too. Now the foreigner is building for himself and with the aid of subsidies from their respective Governments, other countries to-day are competing with us in the world carrying trade with disastrous results to our own shipping industry.
The decay of British shipping is written boldly on the wall. We must rub out that writing. Under the National Government a great advance has been made during the last two years by the various steps which they have taken towards rehabilitating the industries of this country. The Government's efforts in that direction have been rewarded with immeasurable and incomparable success. They have brought about revival in our heavy trades, and shipbuilding, I presume, will be tackled by the Government. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already stated, at a meeting in Birmingham a few days ago, that he and the Government are determined to do something to see that the British mercantile marine is not wiped off the face of the ocean. We congratulate the Government upon the success which has attended their efforts in those other industries, and we ask that their attention will be paid now to this great industry. It is the spirit of determination that is wanted. The words "Decay of British shipping" remind me of the words of Emerson, who said:
I have known England in her old age. I have known England in her hour of trial, affliction, and tribulation, but I found her not old or decadent, but young and vigorous, and filled with determination to win through, despite her vicissitudes.
England won through in the past, and I am prepared to say that if that were the spirit of the Britisher in Emerson's time, it is the spirit of the Britisher to-day.
May I explain what I experienced the first time I rose to address this House—my extreme shyness of the House. It is a remarkable fact, and I do not know why it should be so, but when one who is not accustomed to address the House, gets up to do so, one's tongue seems to
stick to the roof of one's mouth. That is what is now happening to me. As I have said, I hope that we shall get some action from the Government, and once the country has really grasped and embraced the necessity, as I am sure it will, I trust that it will be determined to go on. It may be that before we get a general revival and rehabilitation in shipping, we may have to resort to what is known as the "inevitability of gradual-ness." Those words were used by a very distinguished Member of the Labour party, and they have a great and varied meaning. It may be that by the inevitability of gradualness, and perhaps by that alone, we may improve, but we want that gradualness to increase, and to become acute activity on the part of the Government in regard to the matter before the House to-day.
Of course, it is extremely difficult to dissociate shipbuilding and shipping one from the other. They are embraced in the Motion, and we must talk about them at one and the same time. It is clear that if the industry of shipping could be revived, that is, the carrying power, shipbuilding would also revive, as a demand for new ships would be created. What is the position? It is well known to the Government. As I said before, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made a reference to the difficulties which surround the industry, and the President of the Board of Trade has also made reference to the subject. In Newcastle, I was glad to hear from his lips words similar to those expressed by the Chancellor. Every phase of the shipping world, every sphere of activity in shipping life is involved in the suffering to-day. The industry is in a most precarious position, but I think perhaps the most serious is that of the tramp steamer. As I said before, I am not going to labour these matters too much, because of the number of hon. Members who desire to take part in the discussion. Our paramount need is, of course, the restoration of world trade and the abolition of subsidies.
Do not let the House for a moment believe that I am standing here pleading for the subsidy. I am simply pleading for help, but I think that the paramount need of the moment is the restoration of world trade and the abolition, of subsidies
by other countries which give such overwhelming advantages over our own. Other countries, of course, if they believe it to be right, can adopt subsidies. That is their business, not ours; but as their subsidies enable their people to compete with us uneconomically, and, indeed, make it impossible for us to compete with them, it may be reasonable, and perhaps imperative, to use weapons which they are using. I think it is true to say that both shipowners and shipbuilders dislike subsidies. I am not a shipowner, but I am interested in shipping, which is a commercial industry, and by its commercial activity either flourishes or perishes. Owing to the great competition which is being waged against us to-day, shipping as an industry is not flourishing. It is perishing rapidly, as will be seen from figures which I purpose presenting to the House in a few moments.
The industry is vital to the country. It is vital to our commerce. To us in the north-east it is one of a trinity of very great value. That trinity is the industry of shipping, the industry of steel and the industry of coal. I think the House will agree at once, that if we can revive and rehabilitate the shipping industry, we shall make a great demand upon the shipbuilding industry, which, in its turn will demand steel, and that in its turn will demand coal. At any rate, the shipping industry is very seriously involved at the moment. While we had 200,000 men engaged in that industry in prosperous times the number has gone down sadly to-day. Then 8,500 steamers were flying the Red Ensign, with an aggregate tonnage of 19,000,000—nearly half of the world's tonnage. That is not so to-day. That is of the past. Numerically, British tramp steamers—and that is the branch of shipping which is so seriously involved—have decreased between 1914 and 1933 by 50 per cent., while foreign tramps have increased by 33 per cent. Our tonnage has gone down from 10,000,000 to 5,000,000. Those are serious and striking figures, and are almost beyond comprehension. They illustrate, beyond all doubt, the serious plight of tramp shipping, and must have a demoralising effect upon employés and others who were engaged in the industry when that vast concourse of steamers was in being, and who now stand by
viewing with apprehension the loading and unloading of foreign goods from foreign ships built by subsidised money and engaged in work in which in the past they themselves were engaged.
At the present time, while our tramp steamers have been reduced by 50 per cent., of the remaining 50 per cent., 23 per cent. now are idle, and those ships which are running are not earning the depreciation required for replacement. Apart from the decline in world trade, the great facts against us are subsidies, low wages, and the low standard of life of the foreigner, which all operate against us, and render it impossible for us to compete. More or less the same thing exists in the other great industries to which I made reference a few moments ago, and, in order to eliminate the evils, the Government took necessary and radical steps, the result of which has been extraordinarily remarkable. We want the same action to be taken in the shipbuilding and shipping industry. We must allow no shipping discrimination such as there is against us to-day. I believe that, in spite of the depression which confronts this industry, we are to-day moving towards the dawn of a great revival. I believe that we are marching rapidly towards the rising sun, and that if we can wait courageously and forbearingly, as we have already been waiting, there is a great prize in store for us in the almost immediate future.
A tramp steamer owner—and it is the tramp steamer owner who is most seriously involved to-day—has to compete with severe competition from the roads and from the railways, and in addition he has to face strong competition in the form of small foreign-owned motor boats. These small boats, of about 500 tons, are doing our coastal trade, and often the master is the owner and the crew are generally members of his own family. The cost, therefore, of running these boats is exceedingly small, as compared with the cost of running a similar sized British boat. These foreign boats trade between one British port and another, and I think this is a point which particularly requires emphasising, as it is just this which is killing our coastal trade. These foreign boats trade between one British port and another, although in most Continental and American
countries the British coastal owner is debarred from trading.
This is an iniquitous arrangement, and surely demands some Governmental interference. While our people are debarred from trading on the coasts of foreign countries, that trade is being reserved for the nationals of those countries. That does not apply here. Our coasts are free, and I ask, Could not the Government reserve the British coasting trade at any rate for British bottoms? Would it not be reasonable—this is a suggestion of my own, and does not come from any chamber of shipping or other such organisation—to place a tariff on the gross earnings of foreign vessels trading in this country 2 A foreign coastal boat is chartered to carry, say, coal from Newcastle to London. A tariff of from 10 to 20 per cent. on the gross freight would be paid at the Customs House, and such a tariff would tend to level up the difference between the cost of running a British boat and the cost of running a foreign boat, and would bring a substantial revenue to the Exchequer without expense in collecting.
I think I am right in stating that a tariff is already in existence in the case of fish landed on our coasts by foreign trawlers, and it would seem only reasonable that a tariff should be imposed upon the other man just as it has been imposed on the trawler owner. Against all this, our own owners are confronted with a tax. If they have the good fortune to make a profit at all, which, of course, they have not made in the immediate past, they are confronted at once with an Income Tax of 5s. in the £, whereas the foreign owner can make a profit on trading in our country, and pays no Income Tax at all. Moreover, the foreigner buys his stores and effects his repairs in his own country. This is a battering of British shipping which, to my mind, is intolerable, and our Mercantile Marine is suffering heavily under these State subsidies and embargoes of foreign countries. It is obvious that our shipowners cannot compete with the unlimited resources of foreign States, and unless something is done, and done soon, the coastal trade may pass permanently into the hands of foreign shipowners.
Since 1913 America has increased her ocean-going tonnage by 1,000 per cent., while we in this country are drifting to
bankruptcy. Subsidies granted to shipping companies make very arresting figures, and they are figures which I think will thrill the House with the appalling gravity of their significance. I think I make a right statement when I say that something like £30,000,000 a year—this is the kind of thing which we want the outside public to know—is contributed by foreign States as subsidies towards the shipping industry. France alone, in 1932, contributed £4,000,000, in Italy £5,000,000 was contributed, and then we go across the Atlantic to the United States, and we find that the United States made a contribution of no less than £17,000,000 towards their shipping industry, against which we are asked to compete. It is these subsidies which enable these people to come over here and do our coastal trade, and these countries, while subsidising their own shipping, debar us from their coastal trade. The whole position is iniquitous and one which I feel sure the President of the Board of Trade and the Government will seriously consider and take some steps to remedy.
I was very much interested, as I am sure the House was also, to read a speech made the other day by Mr. Alexander Shaw at a meeting of the P. & O. Company. He very forcibly laid before the company the perils—and they are nothing other than perils—of the British shipping industry in a speech of great comprehensiveness, and he pointed out that as the tonnage of British ships entering British ports declined, the tonnage of foreign ships entering British ports increased. He pointed out also that for the first 10 months of this year the net tonnage of British ships entering at and dealing from United Kingdom ports with cargo was down as compared with 1931 by over 6,000,000 tons, while the tonnage of foreign vessels entering at and clearing from United Kingdom ports was up by 3,700,000. These are stupendous figures, and I hope people outside will get hold of them and realise just what they mean to them.
I think the Government should make it clear to foreign Governments that they are determined to secure fair play for the industry upon which, more than upon any other, Great Britain depends for her prosperity and security. This can only
be done by action. There are routes where British ships are in imminent danger of being driven, by foreign trade competition, out of a trade which was created and developed by British shipping enterprise. Perhaps some international co-operation may help. I do not know. The Chamber of Shipping has suggested—and I believe the President of the Board of Trade has had the suggestion before him—a temporary subsidy where necessary, or as an alternative, the formation of a group of nations willing to trade on reciprocal terms. I need not labour that. I am not dealing, and I do not intend to deal, with the wider side of the question of world shipping.
I have limited my remarks so far mainly to the coastal trade, but on the question of shipbuilding, that largely depends upon the prosperity of the shipping industry itself. If there is no shipping, there can be no shipbuilding, but if you get prosperity on the one side, then you will get prosperity on the other. While I have referred to subsidies being given to shipowners, I have said little or nothing with regard to the fact that subsidies are given by foreign countries to their shipbuilders, and it is interesting to note that only a few weeks ago two passenger liners were ordered in Italy, although the owners of the vessels were anxious for them to be built in England, but they were sent to Italy because Italy could do them cheaper, and that was the result of a subsidy from the Italian Government. We, therefore, lost the building of two ships which would have cost something like £500,000. It was the desire of the owners that these ships should be built in England, but we could not do it, and the Italians could because they were subsidised by the Italian Government.
The United States of America, which subsidises her shipping and her shipbuilding, imposes a heavy import tax on repairs effected in other countries, and it is of further interest to note that the Governments of France, Italy, Spain, and the United States, so far as they are able, forbid their shipowners to place orders for any ships except with shipbuilding yards in their own country, and, as I have said, they insist on goods for their ports being carried in ships of their own nationality. Few countries except our own allow ships of other nationalities to trade between any ports on their coasts.
While I am missing out much of what I wanted to say, I should like to give a few figures which have been given to me by the Shipbuilding Federation. Shipbuilding unemployment, despite the improvement in 1933, which, of course, we welcome, is still higher than that of any other heavy industry. For 1932 the general unemployment figure for the industry was over 58 per cent., with the North-East Coat registering over 70 per cent. To-day those percentages are 57 and 59 respectively. The general figure for all industries in 1932 was 22 per cent., and for the greater part of 1933 it was 19 per cent. Only 5 per cent. of the shipbuilding berths were occupied with work in 1932, and the new orders during 1933 have only increased the percentage of berths occupied to 20 per cent. Eighty per cent. of the building berths are vacant after over 100 berths, representing an annual capacity of 750,000 tons, have been scrapped under the industry's concentration scheme. Even with the recent improvement in mercantile work, the industry has only a little over 250,000 tons under construction, compared with 1,500,000 tons in 1928-29 before the present depression. In the years immediately before the War, nearly 2,000,000 tons were under construction.
Shipbuilding is the greatest assembling industry in the country. For every man employed in the shipyards, two men are employed outside on the materials which go to make a complete ship. In pre-War days the industry was the greatest consumer of iron, steel and coal in the country. In 1913 shipbuilding used 1,897,500 tons of steel, which represented 7,590,000 tons of coal. It is obvious therefore, that if we can get a revival of shipping, we shall get a revival of shipbuilding and the consequent effects on the iron and steel industry. The number of men following the industry to-day is 169,310, and in 12 months 12,000 have left the industry. In 1922 the numbers were nearly double, namely, 358,640, a reduction of 189,330. I do not know that I need trouble the House further. I have many other figures I should have liked to select, but I know that other hon. Members would like to take part in the Debate.

4.34 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: I beg to second the Motion.
During the last two years we have witnessed a very welcome revival in many of our important industries, but there are still two industries, shipping and shipbuilding, which are suffering from extreme depression. If we take a tour round the shipbuilding yards to-day, we find that the majority of the berths are empty, that the cranes are idle, that there is a startling silence where before there reigned the pandemonium of the pneumatic drill and the pneumatic rivetter, and that the unemployed are trudging about outside the gates waiting for the orders which are not placed. The depression in shipowning is perhaps not so evident, although it is just as real. Just as wounded animals are said to slink away to quiet corners to die, so many of our merchant ships are to-day to be found lying in the quiet estuaries round our coasts. They have laid there in many cases for years, and in some cases for only a few months; just occasionally one vessel leaves her sister ships, and then only too often the Red Ensign is hauled down, a foreign flag takes its place, and foreign sailors and foreign money give the ship a new lease of life. I sincerely hope that this Motion will receive the support of the whole House. Such support would give great emphasis to the cry of the shipping industry which has been unheeded for too long and which is now raised with a unanimous voice. We hope to focus the attention of the Government on the urgent need of the industry, and we hope also that the Motion will serve as a warning to other nations that we are not prepared indefinitely to stand by idly and see our ships swept from the seas.
The problems that face the shipping industry, and which will tax all the courage and resources of the Government before they are solved, are of a three-fold nature. The first problem arises from the low level of world trade; the second comes from the excess of world tonnage; and the third from the fact that the British share of whatever world trade is available is growing less in proportion to that of other nations. I want to examine these problems in order to see why they have arisen at all, and to make some suggestions as to how they may be solved. The shrinkage in world trade is a problem which faces all industry to a greater or lesser extent, and, indeed, to-day faces all nations. It is of special importance
to the shipping industry, and the importance of it determined the Chamber of Shipping to adopt the following resolution:
That the paramount need of British tramp shipping is more Cargo. That is the only stable and paramount cure.
Then they added somewhat significantly:
That while it may tend to come naturally, it will come very slowly, and British tramp shipping cannot wait indefinitely for it.
Available world cargoes have fallen in volume since 1913 by 10 per cent., and in value by one-half. I think the House will agree that this is not an occasion upon which to embark on an inquiry into all those mysteries that surround the causes of the world depression in trade to-day. It is sufficient for my purpose if we can realise that, above all industries, shipping is dependent on international trade. It must remain in a state of comparative depression until such time as the demand for carrying capacity has expanded by reason of a greater volume of trade between the nations of the world.
With regard to the second problem, the excess of world tonnage, if the total of that tonnage had remained the same since 1914 this problem would not exist except as an alternative way of expressing the problem of too little trade. It might be argued that to say there are too many ships for the amount of cargo available is the same thing as saying that there is not enough cargo for the number of ships. Many of the difficulties from which the shipping industry is suffering and many of the difficulties for which they are in no way responsible arise from the fact that there has been a gigantic growth of the mercantile marines owned by other nations. We have already been told this afternoon that the world ocean-going steam and motor vessels have increased by 50 per cent. since 1914. Even if there had not been a shrinkage in trade, we would still be faced with the problem of an excess of tonnage. Some nations, determined to possess a large number of ships, have subsidised shipping and shipbuilding to such an extent that the mercantile marines of the world have increased out of all proportion to the economic demand. We have also heard this afternoon that no less than £30,000,000 of taxpayers' money in foreign
countries is being given for the assistance of shipping and shipbuilding.
I would like to give a few more figures to show what is being done and what has been done in one or two countries. The mercantile marine of the United States since 1914 has increased in size by 267 per cent. During that period the American taxpayer has subsidised his shipping to the extent of £1,000,000,000. The fleet of Italy has increased by more than double, that of Japan by 149 per cent., and that of France is half as big again, while the fleet of Great Britain during this period has remained almost constant, and the number of tramp ships has actually been halved. As to the third point, that the British share of whatever trade there is is growing steadily less, the subsidies which have enabled foreign nations to build large mercantile marines have enabled foreign ships to accept rates of freight which cannot possibly be taken by any British owner. Foreign nations in many cases are reserving their trade for their own ships and are discriminating against the tonnage of other nations. Ships of nearly all nations are also run at a considerably lower cost than the ships of this country.
It may interest the House to hear one or two examples of the way in which subsidies are helping the foreigner, and how discrimination is working against us, and of the difference in the cost of running our ships as compared with foreign ships. Two Italian ships were fixed to load sugar in Mauritius for the United Kingdom. One of those ships received from the Italian Government a subsidy of £622 and the other a subsidy of £617. Quite recently my own firm fixed a ship to load Australian grain for Europe at a rate of freight of 26s. 3d. a ton. At that rate of freight a loss is quite certain on the voyage, but owners are constrained to take that level of freight because it is cheaper to lose a small amount of money on a voyage than to lose a steady £20 or £30 a week which is often the cost, of tying up a ship. Shortly after my own ship had been chartered at that rate of freight an Italian ship was fixed at 25s. 9d., a rate which, had it been accepted by any British vessel, would have entailed an enormous loss. I have had figures worked out and I find that the Italian ship on
that voyage would probably be subsidised by its Government to the extent of no leas than £2,000, which corresponds to an additional rate of 5s. a ton for every ton of cargo. In the scramble for business in the shipping world to-day we cannot be surprised that the subsidised vessel gets the freight and the British vessel is left tied up in the rivers and estuaries of this country.
An example of indirect subsidy or discrimination practised against this nation is given by the case of the French municipalities and public utility companies when buying coal from South Wales. In these cases it is often virtually a condition of obtaining a State licence to import British coal that the coal is to be carried in a French ship. I have only recently heard of a still greater advantage which is being given to French ships. In the case of a large order for coal from South Wales, amounting to somewhere about 650,000 tons, an additional preference of 4d. a ton is being given to the shipper if he ships that British coal in a French ship. We have also heard that the German Government are insisting that rice from Burma is carried in German ships. The Italian Government, so far as it is able, insists that coal for the Italian State Railways is shipped in Italian ships. There is one other case which I should like to read for the sake of accuracy:
Information has been received that arrangements have recently been completed between a German syndicate and Rumanian grain exporters for the sale of 500,000 tons of Rumanian grain at the value of £180,000 a month. In return Rumania is to import German goods to the value of £550,000 in 18 months. This purchase of grain is guaranteed by the German Government on condition that German tonnage is employed in each case. The German syndicate are not bound to ship to Germany, but are free to dispose of the grain in the open market, and, in fact, some has already been loaded to the United Kingdom.
It is somewhat ironical that many of these nations which are able to pour out millions of pounds into the coffers of their shipping industry are the same nations which tell us they are unable to pay interest on any debts which they owe us.
Let me give an example of the advantages which the foreigner gains from his low running costs. A small ship flying the Red Ensign had to spend £369 a month on wages and victuals. That same ship was transferred to the Estonian flag,
and the £369 was immediately reduced to £227. Take the case of an ordinary 7,500-ton tramp ship. The wages paid in such a ship flying the Red Ensign work out at about £362 a month. If that same ship is flying the Greek flag the wages are only £251 a month, the French £274, the Italian £212 and the Turkish £l20. On wages alone there is a saving in the case of the foreign vessel of anything from £880 to £2,370 in a 10-months trading year. The result is lamentable. Foreign tramp tonnage has increased by 33⅓ per cent. and during the same period British tonnage has been reduced to less than one-half.
What is perhaps even worse, and what is certainly a more startling fact for the people of this country, is that the clearances and entrances of ships with cargo into the ports of Great Britain itself have gone materially against this country. My hon. Friend who moved this Motion drew attention to some figures relating to that fact, and here are some more. Comparing 1933 with 1931, entrances of vessels with cargo are down by 2,500,000 net tons in the case of British ships and are up by more than 2,500,000 net tons in the case of foreign ships. Clearances are down by nearly 4,000,000 tons in the case of British ships, and in the case of foreign ships are up by something well over 1,000,000 tons. I have tried to show during the last few minutes the sort of difficulty with which the shipping community has to contend, and I want now, under those same headings, to try to show the House and the Government how best shipping can be helped.
May I say, in passing, that references to this question by Ministers have led us to suppose that they attach great importance to unanimity of ideas among the leaders of the shipping industry. Although cargo liners and tramps have many interests in common, at the same time and in certain ways they are competitive, and if the Government are going to wait for complete unanimity from all sections of the shipping industry they will never take any action. Tramp tonnage is suffering possibly more than any other section to-day. By virtue of the type of business in which it is employed it is more open to unfair foreign competition and is less able to defend itself. I read in the "Times" only a day or two ago that the North Atlantic Conference had arrived at agreement with regard to the
rates which are to be charged in the Atlantic traffic over next year, and that Great Britain, the United States and certain Continental countries were all of one accord and had agreed to rates. With what envious eyes must many tramp shipowners have regarded that statement in the "Times," wishing that they, too, could fix over next year the rates they were willing to take for their ships.
In order that we may, if possible, forestall criticism, I would like to discuss before passing to the proposals which we make, some of the criticisms which will be levelled against the Chamber of Shipping or shipping in general, and which, indeed, have been made in the past. Not very long ago the Shipping Policy Committee gave utterance to, and had printed, this Resolution:
The British shipping industry, in the interests of this country and of the Empire, should adhere to the policy of freedom of the seas on a footing of equality for all ships under all flags in all ports in all international and in all inter-Empire trade, and in so doing will best serve the interests not only of British trade and shipping but of the trade and shipping of the whole world.
It is now said that the shipping industry, in asking, as it does, for a subsidy or protection has completely reversed its policy—that it shows, indeed, a woeful lack of sincerity in pressing on other nations the necessity for the freedom of trade and in now asking the Government of this country to give it the protection which we believe it now deserves. But the failure of the World Economic Conference to secure economic disarmament, both generally and in the sphere of shipping, has entirely altered the situation during the last year. It is quite true that for years we have tried to persuade the rest of the world to adopt a Free Trade policy in shipping, as we tried to teach the rest of the world to adopt Free Trade in manufactures and so on. This country was not accused of any lack of sincerity when it was driven in self-defence to become a protected nation. Our efforts to persuade foreign shipping communities to adopt a Free Trade policy have been just about as successful as the Tariff Truce which the Labour Government attempted to negotiate during their last period of office. The fact of the matter is that while we are still desirous of arriving at a state of affairs in which the world shall be a Free Trade world,
both in shipping and, perhaps, in other directions, until that time comes we ask the Government to fight the foreigner with the weapons with which he fights British shipping to-day.
In going back to the three problems which, I said, face our industry, I will not deal at any length with suggestions which shipping people make for the restoration of world trade. It is much too big a subject for me to try to deal with this afternoon. It has engaged the close attention of the Government since it came into office, and all I would say is that I believe that the fact that we are to-day financially stable as compared with the bankrupt state in which we were only two years ago is one of the greatest factors in bringing about the revival of world trade. We congratulate the Government on the efforts they have made to re-establish confidence not only at home but also in the world, and on the success which has met their efforts in the sphere of developing Imperial trade. We regret the failure of the World Economic Conference, but we believe that the Government's efforts in that respect will not be entirely unfruitful. We hope the time may soon arrive when the adjourned Conference may be called together, and when that time arrives we hope and believe that the shipping industry, among others, will not escape the attention of the spokesmen of this Government.
With regard to the proposals which we make to deal with the excess of world tonnage, those who criticise the industry for not embarking upon a national laying-up or breaking-up scheme have a fundamental misconception of the problem which faces us. They fail to realise the international character of the shipping industry. I noticed, in reading a newspaper yesterday, that the President of the Board of Trade, speaking at Newcastle, on Monday I think, and referring to ships that were laid up, said that he hoped they would never run again. Those are the words, as quoted in the "Times":
Those laid up, he hoped, would never run again.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I only referred to some ships. I think that the inefficient ships cannot make a good case for coming out and spoiling the trade market.

Colonel ROPNER: I am ready to admit that the President of the Board of Trade may have been referring to old ships—inefficient or obsolete ships if you like—but I think we should find it rather difficult to know where to draw the line. His words in the expression of his hopes were that these ships would never run again. Why not? Does the President of the Board of Trade also hope that mines which are closed down will never open again, or cotton mills which are not working to-day will never open again? I am convinced that many ships 'which are tied up are very good ships and that they are by no means obsolete. If the argument is followed to its logical conclusion, we may suppose that, in some way, it would be to the advantage of this country if all British ships were scrapped. The only gain that there would be from that would be a gain to the foreigner.
We contend that it is not the job of the Government to live in the hope that British ships tied up to-day will never come out again, but that it is their job to do their best to bring about conditions which will enable even the oldest ships to go out again, and to give employment to British seamen and firemen. Liners are able to rationalise, but the very nature of the trade in which tramps are engaged makes it impossible for this country to embark upon any scrapping or laying-up schemes, unless there is international agreement, and that we are very far from getting.
As the President of the Board of Trade has mentioned the matter, let me turn to the question of obsolete tonnage. I believe that Members of the party opposite frequently accuse British shipowners of being out-of-date and of keeping obsolete ships, whereas what they should do is to build new ones. I am not so sure, as a shipowner, that it is always easier to run a new ship economically than an old ship. Many of the old ships have had their capital values written down, and their overhead charges are considerably less. If you build a new ship, the depreciation is heavy and far heavier than in the case of an old ship. To that extent it is more difficult to make it run at a profit. One quarter of British tramp shipping is already laid up; 25 per cent. of British shipping is rotting at the buoys. It is almost equally true to say that another 75 per cent. is rotting on the sea.
Very few shipipng firms are able to show a profit, even in their profit and loss account, and there are practically no shipping firms which can cover depreciation. In my own case, managing a fleet of 50 ships at 4 per cent. depreciation, we should be able to build for replacement about two ships per year. We have not built a ship for years; not because we do not want to do so, not because we believe our ships to be modern, and not because we would not rather have more modern ships. The simple fact is that we have not the money to make the replacements. If the President of the Board of Trade is anxious that obsolete ships should not go to sea again, I hope that he will bring about conditions which will enable shipowners to replace those obsolete ships and to put more efficient ships into service.
Shipowners have been criticised from time to time by reason of the fact that it has been found necessary occasionally to sell ships to foreigners. No British shipowner is desirous of selling his ships to the foreigner. Coniderable sentiment is attached to a ship. Of all the things of which I can think, that which I would least soon sell to a foreigner would be a British ship, and I am sure that my view is shared by the vast majority of British shipowners. Take the case of a small firm with two or three ships and on the verge of bankruptcy, as many are. In order to remain solvent, that firm has to sell one of its ships. Can you blame them if they sell in the best market? Take the banks which are so heavily involved, or the mortgagees, those who become possessed of the ships when firms do go bankrupt; It is only human and natural, and it is only good business, that, where the foreigner offers higher prices than any British owner is willing to give, those ships are sold to the foreigner. The way to stop British ships from being sold to the foreigner is to bring about a revival of conditions which will enable British owners to compete upon equal terms with foreigners, and to offer in the markets of the world as high prices for ships as the foreigner.
I now come to the last problem which asks for solution, that of the British share in world-shipping growing less. British shipping fighting alone cannot hope to compete successfully with foreign State-owned or State-assisted shipping. Manufacturing industries and agriculture have
been assisted by measures which, for the time, actually tend to depress British shipping, and at the same time no corresponding help has been given to the British shipowner or shipbuilder. Shipbuilders, and those who work in the shipbuilding yards, as well as the officers, engineers, sailors and firemen, gladly pay the higher prices which are sometimes asked for imported goods because of the import duties, if, by doing so, employment is given to men in British factories, but do not let us shirk the point that some measures which the Government have taken have also damaged British shipping in other ways. Everybody engaged in shipping pays, as a taxpayer, a considerable sum for the encouragement of the production of sugar-beet in this country. It amounts to millions of pounds per year. We are glad that the beet-sugar subsidy has resulted in large increases in the output of sugar, and that it has brought assistance to farmers and to farm workers, but, just in so far as it has succeeded in encouraging the production of British sugar, it has limited the amount of sugar which it has been necessary to carry from other countries. British shipowners arc losing £300,000 or £400,000 sterling in freights by reason of the. limitation of the importation of sugar.
We are consumers of wheat, and we are glad that the British farmer is being assisted with that staple crop, but here again, in so far as the British farmer is encouraged to grow more wheat, there will be a loss to the shipowner through a less demand for wheat from America, Canada and Australia.
Shipping cannot be protected in the same way as manufacturing industries are protected. Some of the steps which the Government have taken to protect manufacturing industries and agriculture have harmed shipping, and we suggest respectfully to the Government that we are entitled to special consideration; to the sort of special consideration which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the coasting trade when he let it off the tax which he imposed, in the last Budget, upon heavy oils. Shipping, especially that section which is most unable to help itself, and is most vulnerable to attack, is already half gone. We ask that the Government, as a temporary measure, should grant a subsidy to enable the
industry to struggle on, while the Government consider and act upon other proposals. I will say no more with regard to our request for a subsidy, except that the majority of shipping people thoroughly dislike having to ask for it. It is something which we hoped would never be necessary, but which is quite necessary to-day if we are to be put on a more or less equal footing with our foreign competitors. The amount which the industry asks is small; a sum of £3,000,000 a year for tramp shipping alone. It may interest the House to know that that represents a rate of subsidy less than half of that which the Italians pay to their tramp steamers. The matter is urgent, because the position of the tramp shipper is desperate.
There are other proposals which the Chamber of Shipping have submitted for the consideration of the Government, and which I will run through rapidly for the consideration of the House. The first proposal is that the Government should denounce and then revise existing treaties, and should negotiate new agreements, stipulating in each case for the employment of a minimum number of British ships. We are still the greatest buyer in the world, and we are the best market for no fewer than 24 nations. We are the second best market for 11 others, and there is an enormous adverse balance of trade against this country amounting to about £280,000,000 in 1932. The United States sold to us £63,000,000 worth more goods than we bought from them. We ask the Government to make use of this powerful position which we hold in the markets of the world, and that the basis of negotiation with other countries, even when they are devoting their nergies in particular to helping shipping, should be trade, rather than reciprocal shipping services. If we are to continue to buy from other nations a great deal more than they buy from us, we think it is only reasonable that the Government should demand, if necessary, that the discrepancies in trade should be made up for by the foreigner buying shipping services. There is a case at the moment where we believe a strong hand might be used, namely, the case of Poland. At present we buy far more from Poland than Poland buys from us, but she is at present building—in Italy, incidentally—two liners which I believe are to be placed on the North Atlantic
route. Those ships will be largely State-owned, and they will compete against British shipping. They will displace two Polish ships which are already on that route, and which may be diverted to the South Atlantic, where again they will compete with British ships. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that the President of the Board of Trade has sufficient power to warn the Polish Government that, if they continue to compete unfairly against us in shipping services of the world, we shall have to modify our purchases from Poland in the future.
The second proposal that we make is the formation of a trade group of nations pledged to allow free access on equal terms to each other's freight markets on a reciprocal basis. Our third proposal is that we should impose discriminatory dues on ships or cargoes under subsidised flags, or under the flags of any nations which already discriminate against our flag. Our fourth proposal is that discriminatory Customs duties on cargo imported into the United Kingdom in foreign ships should be levied by the Government. Experience shows that preferential Customs duties are the most rapid and effective way of filling national ships, and in the case of France I have already given one instance where it has become necessary for British ships to be transferred to the French flag in order that they may remain in the coal-carrying trade between Wales and France. We also suggest that cargoes exempted under the Import Duties Act, 1933, and not subject to duty, should only enjoy that exemption when they are carried in British ships. Lastly, we suggest that preferences on Empire goods should be confined to goods imported in British ships. That, we believe, might be done immediately, and we hope that the principle, which is only an extension of Imperial Preference, might within a reasonable time be adopted also by the Dominions themselves.
I am well aware that I have detained the House at considerable length, but the case for British shipping seemed to me to be of such vast importance that it was only with the utmost difficulty that I could decide what points to omit out of those which I had noted in preparation for this speech. I have not mentioned the services of the Merchant Marine during the last War, nor have I
appealed for the support of the House on this Motion on the ground of the danger which this country will run if our Merchant Marine becomes too small in case of future war. Appeals for support which rest upon even the remote possibility of war are not too popular to-day, but no Government which has a real sense of its responsibility can be anything but nervous on account of the undoubted fact that already the British Mercantile Marine is too small for our needs in case of another war such as the last War.
I have not mentioned shipbuilding, because shipbuilding can only revive after a revival of shipowning. If the Government do nothing, we shall lose as a nation our most important exporting trade, and that will make the work of the Government much more difficult in attempting to bring more in our favour the adverse balance of trade. Shipping itself will suffer, and I suppose, finally, will die; and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, not only shipbuilding, but iron and steel, rolling mills, coal, heavy engineering, and many other industries, are ultimately dependent on the prosperity of shipowning. There are innumerable black spots in our industrial areas—the Clyde, the Tyne, the Tees, the Hartlepools, the Humber, the Bristol Channel, Liverpool, the Forth and many other places all round our coast; and in our depressed areas there are men who are longing for the Government to give some assistance to shipping in order that there may be a revival of the trades in which they are engaged. The ocean trade routes are the veins and arteries of that colossal organism, the British Empire. British ships are the blood corpuscles which run in those veins and arteries. Great Britain is the heart of the Empire. If we are starved of the life-blood, the heart will stop beating. Then Great Britain will die, and the Empire will disintegrate.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from the word "industries" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
and declares that immediate steps should be taken to secure a code of international shipping regulations, and, further, is of opinion that the reorganisation of the shipping and shipbuilding industries under public ownership and control, the building of
efficient vessels with modern equipment, and the establishment of fair conditions for the seamen are essential if the British Mercantile Marine is to be restored to its former preeminence.
The original Motion has been brought before the House with such sincerity and such knowledge of the industry by both the Mover and the Seconder that I feel certain that not only the shipbuilding industries but the shipping industry generally will be very grateful to the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Dr. Leech) for taking advantage of his luck in the Ballot to bring before the House the desperate plight of their industries, and to ask the Government to consider it very seriously and to take steps by the best method possible to alleviate it. I am sorry that, while we on these benches recognise the plight of the industry, and desire that the shipping and shipbuilding industries should be brought once again into a flourishing condition, we cannot approach the problem of those industries from the same point of view or with the same suggestions for its solution as the hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Motion. Therefore, we ask the House to consider the Amendment which I am moving.
All of the statements made by the two preceding speakers have been on the lines of inviting the Government to make a declaration in favour of granting a subsidy, particularly to the tramp steamers. I want to suggest to the House that that is not a solution of the problem which confronts and has confronted, not merely tramp shipping, but the whole shipping industry. The shipping industry was asked several years ago to suggest methods by which some security might be given to it, and by which some approach towards prosperity might be opened to it. The last Labour Government set up a committee to consider the disposal of obsolete tonnage. Certain very prominent individuals in shipping and shipbuilding and in commercial circles were appointed to serve on that committee, to invite witnesses to appear before them, and, after they had received evidence, to submit a report with recommendations to the Government as to the lines on which they would suggest that the Government should take action in co-operation with the shipping and shipbuilding industries.
Strange to relate, the industry at that time, through its representatives, could
not come to any considered agreement as to what it required from the Government. Anything that might be calculated to put the industry once again on a prosperous footing seemed to be as far from the minds of the witnesses who appeared before that committee, and who represented the shipping of this country, as they are, indeed, far from the minds of the representatives of shipping to-day; because, while proposals have come to us from the representatives of, for instance, tramp shipping, we find in the reports of various Chambers of Commerce different resolutions and different approaches to a solution of the problem. The shipping industry to-day does not speak with one voice on the solution of the problem that lies in front of and has been hampering the industry. One only requires to go through the various documents that have been sent to us as Members of Parliament from the respective bodies of official opinion in the shipping industry to appreciate the lack of unanimity and harmony that there is in putting forward some cognate proposal that is likely to bring any benefit to the shipping industry.
I have been surprised at the light manner in which the representatives of shipping—I am not referring specially to those who are in this Chamber, but to the representatives of shipping as a whole—treat this matter of obsolete tonnage. I submitted several questions during the time of the late Labour Government and showed that in 10 years there was sold to foreign nations British tonnage which was considered obsolete equal to three and a half years' shipbuilding at the record output. Many of the ships were not scrapped or broken up, but were used in direct competition at cheaper rates because of the lower price at which they had been bought. It has not been suggested by either hon. Member that another reason why these ships can compete more cheaply with ours is the low standard of manning, the low rate of pay, and the fact that they have not to conform to Board of Trade regulations nor subscribe to an A.1 certificate. While shipowners are to-day complaining that France, Italy, Germany and America are subsidising their shipping, they forget that they are themselves subsidising foreign shipping by
giving them ships at a lower capital value, and consequently a lower depreciation rate.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Will the hon. Member say what the owners of those ships should have done? Suppose he had been the owner and had had an offer to sell them, would he have refused it? What would he have done himself?

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not here to reply to an interruption of that kind.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: You are putting forward an argument.

Mr. MACLEAN: Yes, because I am being asked to consider a certain proposition of voting public money to maintain a particular industry, and I am within my rights in examining that proposal from my point of view without being asked what I would do were I in that position. The fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman supports the Motion is no justification for trying to make out that those who are not owners of obsolete steamers which they would like to sell have no right to intervene in the Debate and ought not to oppose a proposal which comes from those who have obsolete steamers which they want to offer for sale. I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be fair to other Members. I hope I shall not take up so much time as to rule out any of those who wish to speak, but we have only till half-past seven, and I cannot give way every time anyone wishes to interrupt. As it is, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken five minutes of my time, which I consider is more valuable than some of the obsolete ships.
Only yesterday I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade. He was very good to reply to it, and I must thank not merely him and the Parliamentary Secretary but also the staff at their disposal for the very elaborate manner in which they replied and for the table that they sent me of ships registered in the United Kingdom and transferred to foreign countries during the past two years. I am sorry that the table was not included in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because it contains startling figures and shows the countries to which the ships are being sold and the uses to which most of them are being put. I have also a copy of "Fair Play," a
magazine published in the interests of the shipping people, which gives a list of ships which have been transferred from the Red Ensign to foreign flags, most of them to Greek owners. The rates at which they are sold range from £1 to £2 per ton, which is very considerably below what a new vessel would cost. The figures are here for anyone who cares to examine them. In the past two years 96 obsolete ships have been sold to Greeks. Not one of them was destroyed. Every one is in commission to-day, manned at cheap rates and the crews underfed—I mean not upon the scale of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union.
British shipowners, who during the past 15 years have been very largely responsible for the plight in which the industry finds itself, come to the House and suggest a subsidy. There are other ways out than subsidies. Every industry in the country has been coming here since the War asking for subsidies. One of the reports sent to us by the Chamber of Shipping states that there are only three industries left which are not getting assistance of some kind—shipping, coal and another. If the Government are to be asked to support any industry, they must lay down conditions. Public money cannot be given to those in the industry to use in the manner in which they think the industry can be re-established. The Government are the custodians of the nation's money, and, if they give any of it to any industries, they are entitled to have some control over the way in which it is spent. Consequently, we submit this Amendment, which says we ought to have national control of the industry. Neither of the speakers who preceded me referred to any of the circumstances that prevail in their own industries. They have told us about foreign subsidies. The curious thing is that one of the nations that are subsidising their mercantile marine to the greatest extent is the United States, which had practically no mercantile marine before the War, and which is now paying in subsidies more than one-half of the total subsidies that have been quoted. Out of total subsidies of £30,000,000 the United States are paying £17,000,000.
We are being asked to join in a subsidy race. Why should we? When is an inquiry going to be made into the transfer
of ships, say, to Esthonia or Yugoslavia, countries which had practically no maritime fleet, and were never considered likely to have one, but are now building up fleets and having British ships transferred to their flags, countries which do not conform to any of the international regulations and conditions of service and have no method of exercising control over them. In many cases it is suggested that these are sham or dummy transfers, that the original owners are still retaining the bulk of the value of the ships but transferring them to foreign ports to enable them to compete with their brother shipowners and undercut them by working with sweated labour. Why is an inquiry not made into that before demanding a subsidy?
We suggest that a stop should be put to this shipping ramp in the interest not only of the country but of shipping itself and that the House of Commons should control the industry and enable it to be reorganised on proper lines. Why should we provide shipowners with further sums of money to carry on this same cut-throat method of competition against subsidised competition abroad? If we pay them £3,000,000 this year, what guarantee have we that next year they will not approach us and ask for £6,000,000 because the competition has become intensified owing to the fact that foreign countries have also increased their subsidies? And so we go on with this mad race. We suggest that our Amendment is the way out of the situation. I understood the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) to quote certain rates of pay which were being paid to the Estonian seamen as compared with the rates paid to British seamen, and I should like to ask him if the rates which he was quoting are the rates contained in the brochure issued by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom.

Colonel ROPNER: If the hon. Member wants a reply at once, the case I quoted was that of an actual ship which had been run for some years under the Red Ensign and then transferred to the Estonian flag. The figures which I gave covered both wages and the money spent on victualling.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to be sure on the point so as not to misrepresent the hon. and gallant Member, but figures re-
lating to wages are also given on page 50 of the report of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. They merely quote the wages paid under the Estonian flag. I think that the hon. and gallant Member, as a shipowner, will agree that the wages paid to the sailors under that flag are among the lowest paid to seamen in any merchant ships or tramp steamers now sailing. Consequently it is unfair for the Chamber of Shipping, in a document which they are issuing asking people to consider their proposals, to take a nation which is almost new in the maritime world and is paying practically the lowest wages in the maritime world, and compare them with the British. In page 51 they give a table which is out-of-date. It deals with 1931, and now it is December, 1933. I am only putting the fact to the House that these details are not up-to-date. Members of the House who are not actual shipowners and who are not able to follow the figures from month to month as vessels are chartered and seamen engaged have been supplied with a table of figures which is practically two years old.

Colonel ROPNER: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. As a matter of fact, I am ready to admit that the table of figures is a year old, but the standard scales as laid down by the countries quoted has not altered at all since then, and, also, it may interest the hon. Member to know, the Chamber of Shipping are more than fair, for, although the table is the scale which is laid down by the nation in question, in point of fact the shipowners of those nations do not pay the standard rate of wages. Whereas he may find that under, I think, Greece a sailor is entitled to £4 a month, we have information which leads us to suppose that many Greek shipowners are paying only actually about one-half of the figure he will find quoted. If we are to get down to more accurate details, he will find that, far from being against us or against the arguments which I have used, the figures of the rates of wages actually paid will reveal a still more startling discrepancy between foreign wages and British wages.

Mr. MACLEAN: I trust that the hon. and gallant Member will not think that I am dealing with the matter unfairly. I was not going to refer to him at all, except that I thought he was quoting
figures from this document. The more up-to-date figures would show a greater disparity. It is rather peculiar, in view of the wages given as being paid to British seamen on this particular date of 1931, that the British seamen, including officers, have since that particular table was compiled agreed to a 10 per cent. reduction for officers and chief engineers, and to 18s. per month reduction for seamen. The hon. Member admits that fact. Consequently, the figures are so badly out of date as to be useless for any comparison in this House as between this country and a foreign country. No reference is made to the Scandinavian countries where the terms of service and wages of seamen approximate more closely to ours than do those given in this table. We should ask the Chamber of Shipping to revise the figures and submit a more up-to-date statement so that we may know how these things are to be considered as far as wages and conditions of service are concerned. In a speech, Mr. Shaw, who used to be a member of this House and who is now chairman of an important steamship company, threw out the idea that we should have methods of subsidy and of Governmental interference with shipping, things which he had always previously hoped would never be necessary. When we find such a leading light in the shipping world as the Honourable Alexander Shaw coming down to the idea that Government support is necessary for the industry, we who are asked to give that support cannot be expected to do so blindly. We must lay down certain conditions.
Among the conditions which we should lay down, and for which we stand, is that the shipping of this country should be taken under national control. It could be put under the President of the Board of Trade, if you cared to do so. However much we may have differed from him in the past in regard to his Free Trade principles, and however much wo may disapprove of his new tariff ideas, at least we will give him credit by saying that we could believe in him as one who could manage a shipping line. In that respect the President of the Board of Trade would make 'an admirable shipping controller in the new set of circumstances for which the shipping industry ask, just as during the War we had a controller over the shipping of this
country. We would have to see to it that matters were not run as they were during the War, when, huge profits were made. Large numbers of individuals were able to make excessive profits, and even fortunes, out of the shipping industry.
As our Amendment indicates, we ask for control of the industry by taking it over in the interests of the nation. We are told that it is on the verge of bankruptcy. In these circumstances, compensation should not be difficult to arrange. When you are asked to take over a bankrupt stock you usually get it at a very reduced price. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade would see to it that the nation did not lose in taking over the industry if compensation had to be paid. We want to put shipping under national control, and, failing such control, we suggest, if the Board of Trade or the Government intend to give subsidies, that shipping must be put under certain control. We would suggest that a committee be set up to control shipping or the methods under which a subsidy was to be given, and that it should also be given powers to examine the whole problem of shipping and shipbuilding. It should have before it for appropriate action the trade routes from which British shipping has been or is being excluded. It should consider the Empire problem in its relation to shipping, consider the effect of the canalisation of trade brought about by Empire and international agreements, and be able to direct future shipping policy in the light of recent development. It should examine—and this is very necessary in view of so many things which are happening in regard to shipping—the Board of Trade machinery and recommend how best it could be overhauled and brought up to date.
Some people believe that the Board of Trade is not strong enough in its activities in regard to shipping. We know that the new rates of pay which are being made to the seamen and the firemen would not be permitted in any industry on shore if such industry were under a trade board. At sea, men are working 60 and 70 hours per week for something like £8 to £10 per month, including war bonus. The committee should have power to regularise the scrapping of obsolete vessels. It would co-operate in
the establishment and the administration of self-compensating funds to dispose of old tonnage and to prevent sales abroad, and it would deal with the whole problem of the construction of new ships. We submit that that is something which could be done now by the Board of Trade, if subsidies or State assistance of any kind were to be given. We have put forward our Amendment as being what we honestly and sincerely believe to be the proper solution of the shipping problem, the taking over by the nation of shipping and the running of it in the interests of the entire nation.

5.59 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member who has brought this Motion before the House to-day has drawn the attention of Parliament to a matter which undoubtedly should command its immediate and very earnest attention. We on these benches agree that the House should view with grave concern the present depression in the shipping and shipbuilding industry. We agree that it is due largely, though by no means wholly, to uneconomic State-assisted foreign competition. We do not consider that the remedy proposed by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), who has moved the Amendment, namely, that shipbuilding and shipping should be placed under public ownership and control is the right remedy, and therefore we propose to vote against the Amendment and for the Motion which is now before the House.
The House should consider to-day not only the one special case of subsidies, but the broader issues which arise in connection with the shipping industry. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said, very pithily, and with great truth, that when it is said that the shipping now on the seas or laid up in the harbours is too much for the world's trade, the fact might be equally truly stated conversely, that the world's trade is too little for the shipping that exists. When it is said that we ought to take steps internationally to reduce world tonnage by 25 per cent., the reason why it may be necessary to reduce it by 25 per cent. is obvious. The experts who were gathered together to advise and to prepare the agenda for the World Economic Conference pointed out that in the period of three years world trade had shrunk in volume
by rather more than 25 per cent. That is the cause of the depression in the shipping trade here and throughout the world.
Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion have declared, very frankly and plainly, that the restoration of world trade is the only true solution of this difficulty, and that shipping must be dependent upon international trade. We have received a report from the National Chamber of Shipping which has been prepared and circulated in view of to-day's Debate, with a resolution adopted by an overwhelming majority at a meeting of the Council of the Chamber, representing practically the whole industry, on 7th December. The first paragraph in that resolution, which has not been mentioned by the Proposer or Seconder of the Motion, puts in the very forefront of their recommendations this point:
The paramount need of British shipping, as of all shipping, is the restoration of world trade by the removal of restrictions and uneconomic practices, including shipping subsidies.
They proceed to say:
This is the only stable and permanent cure for the present condition of shipping.
That is the text from which we on these benches have been preaching for a long time past, and it is satisfactory to know that we have to-day the support of the British Chamber of Shipping. I wish I had time to read to the House the relevant paragraphs in the Report of the Tramp Shipping Committee of that Chamber, which develops the same thesis at much greater length, but, as I do not intend to detain the House for more than 15 minutes, seeing that there are many hon. Members who wish to speak, I must abstain from that pleasure. I cannot, however, refrain from quoting a short sentence from a statement by one of the leaders of the shipping industry, Lord Essendon, who was familiarly known to us for many years as Sir Frederick Lewis, one of the most successful of British shipowners. Speaking recently he said:
The Ottawa Conference had proved of no benefit to the shipping industry. Shipping within the Empire had not yet benefited, nor had there been any marked increase in trade, whilst shipping outside the Empire had been seriously prejudiced by the restrictions, duties, and quotas imposed upon it as a result of the Ottawa Conference Agreements.
Perhaps the House will forgive me indulging in that quotation. It is for such
reasons as these that shipping is in its present plight, and that, as the Committee of Lloyd's, in their report recently stated:
Shipbuilding has reached the lowest ebb within living memory.
That is the root cause. Protectionist Members who are accustomed to point to the benefits derived by industries here and there from tariffs and quotas would do well to remember, as a great set-off, the fact that our shipping industry has been brought to the edge of disaster and the shipbuilding trade also, because of the shrinkage in the carriage of goods all over the world. The Motion on the Order Paper now shows that they are trying to dodge the return of their own boomerang. The right course has been suggested in the resolution from the Chamber of Shipping in their second recommendation:
That the Government be asked to intensify its efforts to promote a trade group of nations willing to trade on a reciprocal basis of equality of treatment.
That, again, is a course which we on these benches have been advocating in this House and in the country for the last 12 months. We have been derided whenever we have made these proposals as hidebound Cobdenites, reviving old shibboleths, and that no attention should be paid to us by the Government, but now that our view is supported by the British shipping industry, through its authorised spokesmen, perhaps it will receive more attention from the Government. When, however, the shipping industry calls upon the Government to "intensify their efforts" to create such a trade group, they use a very odd term, considering that the Government have made no such efforts and that, on the contrary, they killed the efforts made by other countries to create a trade group of countries willing to trade freely among themselves. Hon. Members must be aware that after the Lausanne Conference, Belgium and Holland agreed together to form the nucleus of such a group and to invite other nations to join, but the British Government, instead of fostering that effort and helping in its initiation, killed it downright by pleading their rights under the most-favoured-nation Clause, and declaring that they would not concur in any such proposal. Therefore, when the Chamber of Shipping asks the Government to intensify their efforts to form such a group they are
departing very far from the facts of the case.
It is lamentable that we should be in the plight in which we find ourselves, seeing that the World Economic Conference was brought together specially to deal with these matters and other such matters. But that conference resulted in ignominious failure, largely, in our view, owing to the deplorable course taken by the British delegation at the conference. The House to-day must deal with the situation as it finds it. The plight of the shipping industry is real, and we must address ourselves to it and seek practical remedies. One of the factors in the situation is the granting of subsidies by many foreign Governments to competing shipping. It is impossible for any industry in any country to stand up permanently against its rivals if they are supported by the immeasurable resources the revenues of great Powers. The danger is that these subsidies may increase rather than diminish, and that the plight of British shipping, bad as it is to-day, may be worsened rather than relieved.
There are three possible courses to take. One course is to revert to the eighteenth century policy of the Navigation Laws. This House has reverted to eighteenth century policy in so many matters that it might be inclined to do so in this matter also, but the Chamber of Shipping have not made that recommendation, because they know that two-thirds of British shipping, two out of every three of our British ships, are engaged in trade either with or between foreign countries. Therefore, two-thirds of the British shipping trade is most vulnerable to any attempt to revive the old Navigation Laws and exclude foreign ships from our ports. The facts of the situation have been very well expressed in another report, which has been circulated from the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, one of the most representative and authoritative bodies of shipowners in the country. They say:
The adoption of all forms of reservation and discrimination in favour of British shipping in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, in inter-Empire trade, or in world trade, would defeat the primary object in view, and result disastrously to British shipping, both liners and tramps.
That is a very sound doctrine. British shipping would undoubtedly lose more than it would gain by the adoption of any
such proposals. I should like to quote also the authority of Mr. Alexander Shaw, the chairman of the P. & O. Company, who said:
I am not in favour of a general policy of reservation of British Empire trade for British ships only.
The second proposal is that of a subsidy, and it has been urged to-day that the subsidy to be given should be temporary, and limited to tramp shipping. Both those limitations would prove to be illusory. Once granted, how could you remove it? How are you likely to be able to end that temporary subsidy unless the conditions which gave rise to the subsidy were themselves altered? To call it a temporary subsidy is a mere subterfuge. To give it to tramp shipping only, to enable them to compete more effectively against liners, is an impossible proposal. This difficulty in regard to tramp steamers arises very largely from the competition between tramps and liners. There has been proceeding, through economic causes, a transfer of business from tramps to liners, and many of the statistics that have been quoted with regard to the evil plight of the tramps are counterbalanced or qualified in some degree by other statistics that can be produced including both tramps and liners. This House is not concerned with the distribution of work between tramps and liners. That is a matter for economic forces and for the trade itself. From the strategic point of view, if we have to consider, unhappily, the eventuality of war, liners are at least as useful to the State as are tramps.
We have to envisage this proposal not as being a temporary and partial subsidy, but as being a permanent and general one. The effect of it would be to help to keep obsolete ships afloat. When it is urged that we ought to scrap a large part of our tonnage and that other countries should do the same, to give a subsidy out of public funds to tramp shipping would simply be to run counter to any tendency there might be in that direction. Further, if the shipping industry is to be helped out of the taxpayers' pockets because it is subject to unfair competition, other industries also have a claim to a similar grant. The cotton industry and the coal industry might claim that with regard to Japanese competition as affecting the cotton in-
dustry or in respect of Polish or some other competition in the case of coal they are subject to unfair competition, that they also are of great value to the nation, that they also have enormous numbers of unemployed persons, and that if money is to be distributed from the public purse they are entitled to share in it.
A point in the speech of the hon. Member for Govan also had great force, because if the subsidy is to be given to the shipping industry, it can only be given on the terms that the State would be entitled to exercise a very large measure of control over the reorganisation and conduct of the industry, which the industry itself would not desire. To give a subsidy to any industry in difficulties out of the taxpayers' pockets is an easy and a lazy way of dealing with problems of this character. It was done soon after the War in regard to the production of corn, when £20,000,000 was spent from the Exchequer to assist the growing of corn, at the time of the coal crisis in 1925, when £30,000,000 was given from the Exchequer to assist the coal industry, and it has been going on for 10 years in regard to sugar beet, nearly £40,000,000 having been given out of the public purse for that purpose. Here to-day stern advocates of economy, who say that we should be rigid and ruthless in keeping down national expenditure, propose a further subsidy, which must be permanent and must be applicable to other industries, thereby imposing further burdens upon the public purse. We on these benches do not believe in commercial subsidies of any kind, whether for British sugar beet, Australian or New Zealand butter or Italian or Japanese shipping; we do not believe in subsidies either for beet, boats or butter.
There is the question—if we adopted this principle here, would it tend to diminish foreign subsidies elsewhere, or increase them? Our example would have to be followed by the Scandinavian peoples, by the Dutch and by other countries which do not now give a subsidy; and you would thus extend the system to new parts of the world. Furthermore, those countries which now give a subsidy, like France, Japan, the United States and Italy, might reduce them because we have given them, or they might increase them in order to
make headway against our new expenditure. We might have another competition between the countries of the world. Already we have a tariff competition, a quota competition and a competition in depreciation of currencies, and it looks as though we shall soon embark on a fresh competition in armaments, and, to add to all that, we are to have a competition in the amount of subsidies given for all kinds of purposes. Let me quote again the two leaders of the shipping industry to whom I have already referred. Lord Essendon said:
The only protection that would be of any avail would be a subsidy. It might come to that, but I am sure that the industry itself would prefer almost any other remedy if one could be found.
Then Mr. Shaw said:
Although I may be wrong, I should not like to see a policy by which shipping would become a charge upon the British taxpayer unless as a last desperate resort to save our national position, I hope it will never come to that.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: A subsidy may be the necessary oxygen to save the patient at the last moment.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Mr. Shaw said that he hoped it would never come to that. There is, apparently, agreement that it should be resorted to only as a last resort. Is there any other alternative? I submit that the right course is not to imitate foreign countries who give subsidies—it would only increase and perpetuate the evil—but to endeavour by direct action to decrease and abolish the evil. In the first place, it would be necessary to secure a measure of international co-operation; to enlist the support of our Dominions, which so far has not been forthcoming, to impress upon them the importance of maintaining British shipping for the sake of their own communications and for the sake of their own safety. If our Dominions believe in the necessity of maintaining the Commonwealth, they should be ready to join in common action for the preservation of an industry which is vital to the Commonwealth. Secondly, there are other countries which do not now give a subsidy, and do not wish to give a subsidy, who would be prepared to co-operate. At the World Economic Conference, France also recognised the evil and might not be unwilling in certain conditions to join in suppressing or limiting the whole
system; and, finally, even the United States, through its spokesman at the World Economic Conference, said:
The United States intends to have a mercantile marine. It desires conditions of parity for its vessels, and nothing more.
There may be a basis there for co-operation. No doubt there will be many countries which will not agree, which will be recalcitrant, and it will be necessary to consider whether there is any form of combined action possible to stop these subsidies, which we all agree are a form of unfair competition. The only course that appears to me to be practicable—it would require careful consideration in matters of detail—is whether it is possible to devise a system of imposing countervailing penalties on unfairly subsidised ships when they bring cargoes into the ports of the various countries who are willing to co-operate in suppressing the system of subsidies, in order to make the subsidies unprofitable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Duties."] They would not be in the nature of protective duties, but countervailing penalties on subsidised shipping. It would be much the same method as was adopted years ago in the case of the sugar bounties, when, in Older to secure the abolition of sugar bounties, there was an international convention for its suppression with penalties for those countries which insisted on maintaining them. That would be the precedent in this case.
No doubt such a course would give rise to various practical difficulties, but every other course that might be suggested must give rise to difficulties, and our duty is to endeavour to overcome them. It would be necessary to determine when subsidies are, in fact, given; and that is not easy when many of the subsidies are indirect. Even the ordinary payment for the carriage of mails may be stretched into a subsidy, and aid is given in the building of ships. We have done it ourselves under the Trade Facilities Act, and even to-day the Government have announced that they are prepared to assist in the financing of another great new ship to engage in the Atlantic trade. In so far as Government assistance is given in that way to the financial advantage of a company, it is a subsidy. We are entitled to do it, other countries give subsidies themselves. America and Japan have greatly assisted the building
of their ships, and the American Shipping Corporation has been running a large number of ships at a loss. It is interesting to remember, in connection with the Amendment that has been moved, that America, Australia and Canada have all adopted the plan of conducting a shipping industry through the medium of the State, with a loss of tens of millions to the taxpayer.
Any action, as I have said, must give rise to difficulties, but inaction must give rise not only to difficulties but to dangers. I agree with those who have moved the Motion that this House cannot sit quietly by and see one of our vital industries slowly destroyed, not through its own default, not because it has been beaten by fair competition, but because other countries are using their powers of taxation in order to promote a competition by methods which are unfair. The House, I am sure, will await with the greatest interest the proposals of the Government in this matter, and I hope there will be unanimity in a desire to strengthen their hands in presenting any wisely framed measures which they may be able to devise.

6.25 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: I have the unusually felicitous prospect of going into the Lobby with the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), but my enthusiasm for that course has been somewhat dashed by the character of the speech he has made. I do not propose to follow him into the questions of controversy which we have often debated in this House. While I am glad that the Liberal Opposition will give their support to the Motion I noticed in his speech a tendency to keep open every possible criticism against every possible course the Government may adopt in the future. Only one constructive suggestion came from him, and he was in no danger when putting it forward because it is a proposal which up to now has completely failed. If international co-operation which he commends had been a success we should not be now in this position. It is because international co-operation has proved entirely impossible that, as a last resort, the British shipping industry, for the first time in its history, is asking from His Majesty's Government for some
support to defend it against a disaster which there is no other means of avoiding.
The speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) gave us an entirely different alternative. He proposes that we should put shipping entirely in the hands of the Government. It can only be the gallantry of the race to which the hon. Member belongs that has induced him to make that suggestion this afternoon, because if there is any industry which is less capable than any other of being conducted efficiently by Government it is the shipping industry. We have sufficient proofs of that. Australia lost something like £14,000,000 sterling when she ran the shipping of that country. Canada has lost £16,000,000 in the same adventure, and the United States up to now have incurred a total loss of £79,000,000. France purchased her shipping fleet at the end of the War for £55,000,000 and then sold it for £13,000,000, thus losing £42,000,000. These examples of Government attempts to run the shipping business are not very encouraging to this House.
We are considering to-night a Motion in perfectly general terms, which asks the Government to take into consideration the serious plight of the shipping industry and to devise suitable measures by which it may be defended. The whole range of opportunity is left open to the Government, and I do not think we require to be at all dogmatic upon any particular line, because those who have any experience of shipping know that the only repository of all the facts which are necessary to be considered in such a case as this is the Board of Trade. There are many considerations which will be absent from the minds of many of us in urging one course or another and which are present only to those who have expert knowledge of these affairs. I propose, therefore, to make very general observations. In the first place I wish to make it plain that the British shipping industry, speaking generally, wishes no interference from anyone, that it is prepared to defend its own position and to fight its own cause entirely unaided, provided that adventitious help of a character which no industry by itself can meet is not put up to destroy its very existence. It is only because it now finds itself in a position of paramount difficulty that it
comes with a request to the House of Commons to-day.
The British shipping industry has been accustomed to many handicaps, which it has met in the past. For example, there is the fact that British ships have always had to compete with lower wages on foreign ships, with the possible exception of the ships of the United States. But they are not complaining about that, although it is a serious matter. They have faced it in the past and they will face it in the future. There is another handicap which has become very difficult to meet at the present time. It is the handicap caused by the sale of British ships at knock-down prices to foreign shipowners, who run these ships at much lower charges against the country from which the ships came. I would make the suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade that something requires to be done in that regard. I do not know whether one requires to go so far as actually prohibiting such sales of ships if it is proposed to run them, but in so far as they are being sold for the purpose of being run, I think that something in the shape of an export duty ought to be put on the sale of them, in order that they shall be rendered more expensive and the cost made larger than the foreigner cares to face. I only suggest that with great diffidence.
The main difficulty undoubtedly is the one to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen has referred, namely, that of the subsidies which have been granted by foreign nations. I am in entire agreement with him that subsidies are things which ordinarily are bad in themselves. I am also of the opinion that anything in the shape of permanent subsidies is a very great danger to the industry to which they are granted. But I noted that Mr. Shaw, at the meeting of the P. & O. Company, said that you may upon occasion have to give a subsidy in order to keep your shipping alive. My right hon. Friend suggested international co-operation. But while waiting for its realisation disasters may happen. One remembers the story of the great surgeon who at the end of an operation told his students that the operation had been entirely successful but, unfortunately, the patient had died in the course of it. We have to preserve this industry, and it may be necessary to use
the method of subsidy in order to prevent disaster coming upon it. We want immediate action. We cannot wait for foreign nations, especially having regard to the fact that at the World Economic Conference in June a series of very important nations refused to have anything to do with an arrangement by which subsidies should be abandoned.
Then what are the considerations which have to be borne in mind? Take the case of many of the tramp ships at the present time. Their experience is that the rates for particular traffics are cut by foreign ships just by the amount of the subsidy which they obtain from their own Governments. The amount of the subsidy in any particular case or in total might be small, but it creates an enormous wreckage and loss to the British ships which lose the traffic. Then there is the fact of which the hon. Member for Govan spoke with so much feeling, that many merchant officers and seamen are tramping the streets without employment. In such circumstances a subsidy is not only legitimate, even for those who do not believe in subsidies, but may be the only weapon which can be used. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen will not agree with me about this, but is is certain that we never had any influence in tariff negotiations until we were able to threaten reprisals.
I am not going to make any unfriendly comment about a foreign nation. I do not suggest that any of them has done anything which is not quite within its competence. Other nations have been defending their shipping while we have been neglecting ours. All I want to say is this: I can only make the remark really pointed by mentioning a particular country which is taking advantage of subsidies on many different traffics. I have the greatest admiration in the world for the present Prime Minister of Italy. He has done for his country a work which every man must laud as of almost super-eminent value in his day and generation. He has built up industry after industry within his own country. Among the industries which he has fostered, nourished and cherished, is shipping. But he has done it by granting subsidies from the taxpayers' pockets. I have no influence and power, but if I had—the Prime Minister of Italy is a great realist—I should be very much inclined to say to him "We are perfectly willing to sur-
render our place in shipping if you can build ships better than we can and run them better than we can and navigate them more skilfully than we can." The British people are good sportsmen who know when they are beaten and they would accept the facts. But what I should say to him is, "Do you propose to drive us off traffics which have always been ours, with the aid that the Italian taxpayer gives to your ships? If you are prepared to pit the Italian taxpayer against the British taxpayer in order to destroy trade which is vital to our existence then we must for our very life take up the challenge." I would say that in no spirit of hostility or unfriendliness to anyone, but I am convinced that the question with which we are now dealing is so crucial to the life of this country that we have to make a determined effort to save the situation.
There are other cases with which we should have to deal differently. There is, for example, the situation in the Pacific at the present time. On a voyage which some of us have taken from Australia by way of New Zealand to Honolulu and Vancouver—

Mr. J. JONES: Did you play the ukulele?

Sir R. HORNE: I did not play it but I heard it. On that voyage as long as Honolulu was not part of American territory our ships were entitled to call there and to go on to San Francisco and do that trade. Now, since Honolulu has become part of American territory, we are not entitled to make the voyage between Honolulu and San Francisco with any traffic. It is regarded as coastwise traffic of the United States and we are excluded from it. But American ships run from Sydney to Auckland within our Empire and then are free to go anywhere they like. I do not think it is unfriendly to the American nation to say, "What you regard as good practice in your case is at least legitimate for us." I am not sure that other nations are not regarding us as fools for not having taken advantage of the position in which we are. I am certain that they will never make any concessions to us until we have got rid of these follies.
Hon. Members have spoken of other difficulties of our shipping. Lines which
are running against us in the Pacific at the present time are subsidised to the extent of between £400,000 and £500,000 a year. Those are subsidies which cannot be justified on the basis of any service, such as the carriage of mails. Our ships are carrying all the mails between San Francisco and Vancouver at a fee for service and for shipping space placed at the disposal of the Government agents in connection with Post Office matters, for something like £68,000 a year. I give that as an example of the kind of difficulties with which British shipping is meeting. I rather think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen would agree that in such cases we should call together the representatives of the British Dominions and put to them the proposition that the Empire would be seriously injured if this competition ran British boats off the sea in that traffic, and that we had better adopt the earliest possible remedy that we can find in order to deal with the matter.
There are many things, of course, which may be suggested to be done—for example, in making treaties such as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been making recently in regard to trade between various countries, shipping should be kept in mind and stipulations might be made that goods should be carried to some extent in British bottoms, in the same way as is stipulated with some countries that they must take a certain amount of British coal. That is one thing which I think is worthy of attention, and there are other ways, in connection with port dues and dock dues, by which we could give an advantage to goods which were brought in British ships. I do not dilate on these things now.
I have the greatest possible confidence, from the speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade in the last few days, that this great and serious question is to be investigated with determination, and that the difficulties with which we are faced are to be given a remedy which in the wisdom of the Government they think the best that can be devised. But of one thing I am sure, and that is that we have to make foreign nations aware that the British people are aroused upon this subject, and that they do not mean
to surrender the place which they have had through all the centuries on the seas of the world.

6.44 p.m.

Sir CHARLES BARRIE: The ground has been so well covered by so many speakers and there is so little time left to me, that I purpose to be very short and to deal with only one or two concrete facts. As a shipowner of, I am ashamed to confess, some 40 years' standing, I do find in the industry at the moment conditions which, if we were in one of the ordinary cycles of trade depression, the shipowner could contend with; but the position in which the shipping 'industry now finds itself is a parlous condition and one of which the industry cannot rid itself. The shipping industry, therefore, welcomes this Debate and the opportunity of ventilating a matter which has been the subject of a certain amount of controversy and comment in the Press for a considerable time. The shipping industry suffers from one thing alone, and that is the want of international trade and no subsidies that we can institute will ever take the place of international trade. But if other countries are to subsidise their tonnage so as to jeopardise our position as a maritime nation, surely it is the business of the Government to try, as far as they can to help the shipping industry to tide over the short interval until international trade recovers and the industry is enabled to get on its legs again.
The shipowners fully expected that a lot of the remedies which were adopted to help other industries in the country would affect shipping. What they ask now is that until international trade recovers, and until they have a chance to help themselves, the Government should give them a certain amount of aid in one way or another. The proposal made by the Tramp Shipping Committee, of which I was a member, was that a small subsidy amounting to £3,000,000 a year should be granted to tramp-owners for a short time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was sceptical about that proposal. He thought it was the thin end of the wedge of a permanent subsidy. Nothing of the kind. I can tell the House that it was with the greatest difficulty that the Tramp Shipping Committee came to the decision to ask for any subsidy at all. They would prefer the Government to put into operation other means, which they believe are
at the Government's disposal, in order to meet the present difficult position.
I am interested in a line which runs between this country and Poland. It is the line referred to by the hon. Member who seconded this Motion. That line used to run several sailings each fortnight with bacon and other produce to this country but in order to satisfy the aspirations of the nationals of that country we had to give up half our trade. Another branch of the same line which covers several other ports in the Baltic had the same experience, until, fortunately, the bacon quota began to loom in the distance and after the President of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Secretary had mildly suggested to these other countries that perhaps a half-loaf was better than none at all, they thought better of their attitude in this matter. The suggestion which I have to make is that in all trade agreements that are being made we should take care of the interests of our shipping as well as of any other section of our industry. That indicates one avenue which might be and no doubt is being explored. Our position as a maritime nation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir B. Home) has said, has definitely declined in the last two or three years. We used to own 50 per cent. of the world s tonnage. Now we only own 43 per cent. and there is a general tendency for British shipping to go down. We have 47,000 British sailors walking the streets to-day. Is that a position which this great maritime nation likes to see? Is it not worth while trying to help this industry in some shape or form?
This is not a party question. It is a question for the whole House of Commons. It is of national importance that we should do all we can to help this in dustry which, through no fault of its own, but on account of circumstances has got into difficulties. I notice that an agreement was made with the Argentine not long ago. What is the position in regard to that country? Only one-third of the grain and goods of that character, coming from that country, are carried in British ships. The Italian Government the other day bought large quantities of nitrate from Chile. They stipulated that it was to be carried in Italian ships. The Seconder of the Motion also drew attention to the fact that Italian ships, under a subsidy, brought large quantities of
sugar from Mauritius to this country. I think he omitted to make the point that that very sugar was produced in Mauritius under a subsidy given by this country. Thus British shipowners had the mortification of seeing British subsidised sugar, grown in Mauritius, brought to this country in Italian ships. Two of the largest millers in this country have made a praiseworthy effort by stipulating as far as they can for the use of British vessels but the main facts of the situation have been so well explained during this Debate that I refrain from giving any further particulars of this kind.
I would emphasise that the question before the House and the country is not whether the shipowner is to get the subsidy and whether he is to benefit. The question is one for the nation. Are we to stand idly by and face the possibilities which would arise, in the event of a war, should the present shipping situation continue? We pray that there may not be another war, but if such an event did occur we would then have to rely, even more than we did during the last War, on foreign tonnage to bring us, not only food, but the very oil for our battleships. I think the country, if they realised the position, would unhesitatingly say, "No matter what the cost, the British maritime fleet must be maintained at a high level of efficiency."
I wish to make one reference to coastal shipping. So much attention has been attracted by the big liners which trade to and from this country and so much glamour surrounds them, that we are inclined to forget the coastal fleets. There are no fewer than 307 different lines of coasting steamers and there are 70 different ports fed from London alone by these little vessels, which did so much during the War to help the Fleet and the country in general. Their trade is being threatened by foreign vessels which are run at about half the cost. If the same treatment were meted out to these foreign vessels as to the British vessels, and if they had to trade under the same conditions, we would find no objection. In the case of Australia, for instance, any vessel engaging in coastal trade there has to pay the same rate of wages and conform to the same conditions as the Australian vessels. All we ask for the coastal trade of the country is that foreigners trading on the coast here
should have to comply with the very same conditions as our vessels, whether those are Board of Trade conditions or otherwise.
I sympathise—although I am sure he does not ask for my sympathy—with the President of the Board of Trade in having to deal with this matter. It is not an easy question to resolve. Subsidies, of course, are not new in the case of the foreigners, and it is only as a result of the scarcity of foreign trade during the last few years and the fact that these foreign countries have been extending their fleets so much that we find ourselves in the present difficulty. In connection with the scrapping of ships I agree, curiously enough, with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). I raised this question in the House over a year ago and it is not too late yet to do something in that respect. We could get rid of difficulties as to selling tonnage abroad, if the Government would make up their minds to help shipbuilding and shipowning at the same time by scrapping all the vessels that are now rotting in our ports and using the steel in order to produce new steel for new vessels. That, besides assisting the shipbuilding industry, would assist the shipowner by giving him new tools to work with and would help in defeating foreign subsidised competition. I repeat that this is a national question and not merely one for the shipowners, and it must be viewed in that light. The shipowner is not asking for a subsidy out of charity. He is asking for a subsidy in order to keep our mercantile fleet going so that it may be there for the use of the country in any national emergency, and in order to keep our flag on the seas. It is not a shipowners' matter; it is a matter for the Government to deal with nationally, and I hope they will be able to come to the assistance of this vital industry and help it through the present crisis.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret very much that it should be necessary for me to intervene at this stage, and to prevent one or two of my hon. Friends who wished to do so from taking part in this Debate. We are greatly indebted to the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Dr. Leech) for having introduced this topic and I am only sorry that, under the Rules
of the House, so little time is available for the discussion. There has been in the course of the Debate a very wide covering of ground. Some of the speeches have been full of material and that of the Seconder in particular was marked by a knowledge which has been gained from the ripe experience of himself and his family. The difficulty with which we are all faced in dealing with the subject of shipping is that information on shipping is almost worldwide and that there is no one who knows all about it. Anybody who would claim that he knows all that there is to be known about British shipping would be either a liar or a fool. All the different classes of shipping which came under consideration to-day show how varied are the problems with which we have to deal. The tankers present one problem; the coastal vessel another, the ordinary tramp a third, the cargo line yet a fourth, and the passenger liner a fifth, and indeed I could go on for a long while enumerating different classes of shipping in which different problems arise. Indeed you may find competition being conducted between various classes of shipping under the British flag just as keenly as between vessels sailing under different flags.
Dealing with this subject in the short time at our disposal I can only give a sketch as I go along, first of the problem with which we are faced, and secondly of the means which might be taken to deal with that problem. I dismiss at once the proposal which was made from, the Opposition Front Bench. The experiences of America and Australia are quite sufficient to dispose of the idea that we can get out of our present troubles if we hand our merchant fleet over to the Government to be managed by the Government. Even if the Government were composed of experts, even if it consisted of the President and the members of the Council of the Chamber of Shipping, that would be insufficient to make such an experiment succeed. You cannot by that method manage a great industry like shipping, especially when you are fighting for your existence in that industry. That is not the experience of one nation but of all nations. You cannot conduct an industry of this kind without being in daily touch with those very sensitive markets, the freight markets in the Baltic and elsewhere, and without having a knowledge of the amount of traffic likely
to be carried in various parts of the world and, for that purpose, the Government and Parliament would be totally unfit.
Let me point out how largely the present plight of British shipping is due not to political but to purely economic causes. It is impossible to run any fleet, either a tramp fleet or a liner fleet, at a loss for long without not only exhausting the funds of the company or the persons owning the ships but also making it impossible for those companies or persons to rebuild their fleets. A part of the problem which we are discussing is that of shipbuilding but as the hon. Member for West Newcastle said, shipping and shipbuilding are practically one and the same thing. An unprofitable shipping industry means fewer orders for the shipyards; a profitable shipping industry means more orders for the shipyards. What is the reason why there has been such a tremendous fall in the profits made by these various companies? I should like to interpolate the explanation that I am not speaking only of the shipowner, although he is just as worthy of consideration as any other member of the community. I am thinking of all classes of men who are connected with shipping—shipowners, sailors, firemen, engineers, navigating officers, ships' officers, those who are working in the manufacturing and repairing side of the industry, and those who are performing all the commercial duties which are necessary for the maintenance of a big merchant fleet, and with the help of whom alone a merchant navy is able to exist.
The reason why profits have gone down since the War is, as the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) truly said in a sentence that was, however, not altogether wise, undoubtedly the shrinkage of world trade. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the merchant navies of the world are too numerous, but he thinks that reducing their number is not the way to set about solving the problem. The proper way, he thinks, is to increase the volume of the country's trade. I accept that as a commonplace which is perfectly true—like a great many other commonplaces. The really important thing for us is that they have got completely out of balance. As an illustration, if a cargo of maize is to be brought home from the River Plate and
there are five or six, or 16 or 20, vessels anxious to carry that cargo home, the rate goes down. It may start at 25s., but it is not like a railway rate, which only changes, perhaps, with summer time. The owner or the broker of that cargo, watches the market day after day and finds that he can get it down to 20, below 20, to 17s. 6d., and 15s. 9d.; and then at last he takes his ship. The vessel that takes that cargo has to take it because it often has no other means of getting home without making a dead loss. In fact, it probably does make a dead loss at that rate, but its loss is a good deal less than it would make by lying up in" the River Plate or by going out of action altogether.
It is the market moving up and down which decides the direction in which traffic shall go. There are too many people who do not know much about shipping but who look on it rather like a railway service, or think of it in terms of the regular passenger lines which are spread out all over the world. What is true as regards liners is probably quite untrue as regards a tramp. A tramp may go away from this country with a cargo of coals for Brazil, and the owner may not know what ports it is going to visit before it gets home again. He may send the ship for a ballast trip from Pernambuco to Sydney, or he may send her round Cape Horn or through the Panama Canal to the Pacific. There is nothing to decide what he shall do except the movements of the market. The tendency during the last few years has been for the markets to sag away directly vessels appear. When vessels are put on the market operating tonnage in any part of the world, down goes the market to such an extent that it is almost impossible on some routes not only to make ends meet but to come within a thousand pounds of making ends meet.
What is the biggest shrinkage we have seen in the carriage of these great world commodities? There is, of course, less grain carried now than there was, and that hits the tramp far harder than the liner. In the grain markets of the world, the British liner is sometimes competing with the British tramp. Some of my hon. Friends think that there is one cure for the problems of both these industries. What, however, would they do in a case of this kind, when liners are
picking up cargoes of wheat that used to be carried by tramps and, conversely, the tramp is ready to operate and pick up the various parcels which formerly went into the bottom of the liner, and to do so at a lower rate, undercutting the liner? You cannot apply the same cure to both classes of ship. We are all well aware of the fact that the competition between the two leads to great expense.
The reason why the report of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom is different from the report of the Liverpool Steamship Owners is that the report of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom owes its origin to the tramp members of that Chamber. They are probably the ablest managers of tramp shipping to be found anywhere in the world. I know a very large number of them, and in times past, when I was not otherwise engaged, I used to have to compete with them, and I know what their mettle is like. They know how to set out their case, they know how to manipulate their shipping, they know how to conduct their business better probably than any other business men in the Empire. They have set out in their report—a most admirable document—the whole of the facts of the problem with which they are faced, and they have summed it up in a request to the Government to give them the assistance of a subsidy. The Chamber, when it sits not with the tramp owners only, but with representatives of the other branches of shipping as well, naturally doss not put this demand in that form; it does not regard that as the only way out of the trouble. Those who conduct the general shipping business within the Empire have to meet an entirely different set of conditions to those of my friends of the tramp trade who have been sitting for some time evolving a scheme and doing their best to secure agreement on the questions involved. With complications of that kind before us, we do not find it at all easy to know how best to give permanent benefit to the British shipping industry.
Before I sit down I shall have some-thing to say with regard to that subject, but meanwhile we had better understand the conditions under which we are existing. The gross tonnage of the world is far greater in volume than it was before the War, with an amount of world trade
far less than it was before the War. Freights have therefore naturally gone down since before the War taking 1913 as the base period, from 100 to 70 or 80. On the other hand, the expenses of running the ship, of having to carry on with freights at that very low level, is probably anything from 40 per cent to 50 per cent. greater. How is it possible for that state of affairs to continue without our getting deeper and deeper into the plight in which we find ourselves? The tramp trade has been very largely dependent upon the carriage of outward cargoes from this country. The fact that coalfields have been developed abroad and that oil has cut into many of our coal markets, has brought about a very great drop in the export of coal to foreign countries, which used to be the staple outward cargo of the tramp vessels. Nothing but the restoration of that coal trade to something like its former volume will give British shipping the full chance it had in its palmy days.
Then, while I am speaking on the subject of freights, I ought to point out that there is this difference between the liners and the tramps. The liners have long since organised all their routes, under the control of what are called "conferences." These conferences reach agreed rates at which they would carry the various commodities and passengers in the various classes of their vessels. The conferences have been worked, on the whole, for the benefit of the trade of the world as a whole. The House may be interested to know that when the Imperial Shipping Committee has inquired into freight rates on a suggestion of an abuse of the conference system, they have without a single exception, reported that they regard these conferences as of real value to those who use the ships, to the cargoes that are carried in them, and to the countries that they serve. There is nothing like that in the tramp industry.
I am not sure that those of us who have been connected directly with that industry have been altogether wise in not taking a leaf out of the liners' book. It may be that we have lost a great opportunity there. But the difficulty of arriving at an agreement in an industry that is so varied and under the control of so many different nationalities is of course almost insuperable. I do not need to describe to the House what happens if you have minimum rates such as might
be reached through the conferences by the liners. An owner breaks away, and how does he set about it? If he is not a very straight fellow, he probably has a private understanding with his merchant, or there has been some hint as to the terms upon which he does it, or as to the slowness or the rapidity with which his cargo is discharged—there are all sorts of ways of getting round those arrangements.
If the difficulty has been encountered in this country, how much greater must it be when one has to deal with people of 18 or 20 different nationalities? There is one institution which has done admirable work for the merchant shipping not only of this country but of all the Northern European countries, namely the Baltic and White Sea Conference. I am not sure that it would not be in the best interests of all concerned that the influence and power of a conference like the Baltic and White Sea Conference could be largely extended, but I will say at once, with such knowledge as I have, that it will be impossible for the tramp traders, the tramp companies, to deal with their problems exactly as the liners have already dealt with theirs. That is an additional reason for saying that we cannot hope, by one and the same cure, to deal with the problems of the two branches.
It is very easy to describe the plight into which shipowners and the shipping community as a whole have slipped. It is very difficult to explain to the 60,000 or 70,000 seafaring men who are walking about the streets of our seaports that the world shrinkage is the explanation of their unemployment. A great many of them are quite intelligent enough to know that. You cannot explain it to the whole of them; they think there are a great many other explanations, and amongst the other explanations I have no doubt that they imagine that the abandonment of the policy of Free Trade has had something to do with it. Do not, however, let us, in a discussion of these subjects, be led away to look for fiscal causes for every trouble. The right hon. Member for Darwen tends to employ two different arguments when he is dealing with shipping and when he is dealing with tariffs. I read a speech which he made somewhere in the provinces during the last few days, in which he recognises how serious is the condition of the
shipping industry. I am sure, if cotton had been the subject, he would have made a different speech. This afternoon he tried to find some cure for the troubles of shipping. Listening to his speech, I found him taking one suggestion after another which had been made and turning them all down. Nothing would do what he wanted; nobody's suggestions would satisfy him except perhaps that of a Free Trade group. That was the only one. He said that we ought to negotiate with foreign countries. What have I found? I have found that unless you have something to negotiate with, you need never take your ticket to any one of the European capitals.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that I did make a definite concrete suggestion for practical means that could be used in such negotiations.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If we are to negotiate as the right hon. Gentleman says, we must have some means of negotiating—to put it roughly—a threat. What does my right hon. Friend say to that, or how does he propose to help us in our investigations?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Free trade. I did suggest a means.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I must have been listening rather carelessly. It surprised me to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of retaliation.

Mr. J. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman ought to know. He used to be in the same box.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If it is going to help us to negotiate with foreign countries, we will have to have something to give away. That is exactly what must happen in all negotiations. We have had some experience of negotiating on this very subject quite recently. When the World Economic Conference was sitting at South Kensington, one of the Sub-committees dealt with the question of the shipping subsidy, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was made chairman of that committee and conducted its deliberations with great skill. But what was his experience? With the exception of Norway,
Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and—rather grudgingly and full of conditions—France, although every flag was represented at that conference, there was not one except those I have named who would support our anti-subsidy policy. They were all determined to go on, and their subsidies take many forms. They are not only plain, straightforward mileage subsidies, but subsidies that are given to shipbuilding—so much a ton—and some of them vary their subsidies according to the speed of the vessel. They give it sometimes by way of discriminating dues, and some by way of taxation, and in the case of the United States of America, where they had a superfluous fleet on their hands, they chartered it out to the, shipping companies out there at fictitious rates, and the managers of these vessels, which they had received under their control at fictitious rates, were able to run at far lower freights than those necessary in the ordinary freight market. They were just as guilty of subsidies as though they had given hard cash.
In the discussions, in some of which I took part, as a listener, I was surprised to find how determined were some of the European countries to have nothing whatever to do with even the diminution of subsidies, much less the wiping of them out in any shape or form. I am afraid that we made no progress, and one of the reasons why we made no progress there was because we were not able at that time to be sure that we should be able to attack those who offended without-doing more harm to ourselves than to them. I beg the House not to be in too great a hurry. I know that everybody in the shipping industry is impatient to find some way out of their present troubles, but if we were to jump at one conclusion to-day, we might find that we were building up for ourselves damage or injury which would cripple another section of our shipping or perhaps another section of our trade of very great importance. We have to weigh and counterbalance with very great care what we are doing.
The proposal, however, which has been put before us, and is already being considered as a practical proposal, is that which comes from the Chamber of Shipping with regard to a subsidy for tramp ships. I want to make quite clear at this stage that the temper of this country has been aroused on this subject.
The Government are conscious of that, and though it has not been open to us in the last few months to say much in public, we are well alive to the fact that, unless we can bring home to the aggressive countries, who are fighting us with finance as well as with ships and men, the fact that we can hit, and hit hard, that our resources can be put at the disposal of this great and essential industry, I do not believe we shall make any progress at all. To-day already, in answer to a question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown that the financial resources of this country are going to be put to the service of this essential industry. The form in which the assistance is given in that case is not applicable to any other, but it is a portent, and I would suggest to those who look after the interests of the foreign flags that that portent is of practical value.
I am not so certain that we should come to the end of our troubles even if we were to adopt a subsidy of 10s. and of 5s. See how easy it would be for that 10s. to slip through the fingers of the shipowner. If he is going to get a subsidy of 10s. and comes into the freight market, the same market that I described earlier, he comes with the 10s. up his sleeve, and the tendency will be for him to bid right up to the limit of that 10s. in order to get his cargo, and he finds when he is doing that that the 10s. which we have given him, instead of going for the benefit of shipping, may be going for the benefit of a merchant, perhaps a foreign merchant belonging to a nationality we do not like. It is possible it may go in a direction we may never have intended, and I think it is really up to the shipping community as a whole to find means which they recommend to us with certainty, and that we can accept, by which any financial aid that we give shall not be dissipated in that way.
That is the part they can play, and I have no doubt, as they are very able men and know their business very well, and as they are in the habit of acting quickly, they will very soon have some suggestions to make to us under that heading. But observe that the subsidy for which they have asked is to be temporary. It is to be limited in time and in amount. It is to be applied to safeguarding an industry which is passing through a great
crisis and which in some respects is passing, as my hon. Friend behind me said, from one stage to another in its development. I would add that as it is frankly an emergency measure, its object is not to bolster up the inefficient ships or the inefficient managers of ships, but to preserve something that is of vital value to the country as a whole, and the reason why I think we are justified in asking for assistance—I find it a little difficult sometimes to keep clear of the knowledge that I had shipping connections in the past, but I hope the House will forgive that slip. The reason why I think it is necessary that we should be careful about these matters, that we should preserve and foster particularly the tramp shipping of this country, is that that tramp shipping is absolutely essential, not only for our well-being in peace time, but for our organisation if perchance we should once more be engaged in war.
The Admiralty is almost as much interested in this as the Chamber of Shipping itself. We must, therefore, regard tramp shipping as being a national service in the broadest sense of the word. I would only say, with regard to the great liners, that they are having to meet a competition nowadays from State-aided concerns which has landed them in great difficulties. My right hon. Friend, I have no doubt, has in mind the competition in the Pacific. Indeed, I think he mentioned it. It appears to be a very unjust thing that the United States of America should regard a trip from New York to Honolulu as being a coasting trip and should take full advantage of all the reservations which are made for coasting trade, but, if we are to make anything like a rejoinder to that, we must bear in mind that we have such a very large interest in foreign trade and that we do expose a very broad flank to attack.
I do not know that the House has thoroughly appreciated these very remarkable figures. Depleted as our shipping undoubtedly is, of the world's international trade 15 per cent. is British inter-Imperial trade, 39 per cent. is between the British Empire and foreign countries, and 46 per cent. is between foreign countries alone. British shipping carries, of this, 90 per cent. of the inter-Imperial trade, 60 per cent. of the trade between the Empire and foreign
countries, and 25 per cent. of the trade between foreign countries alone. Indeed, it is a remarkable fact that there are a good many vessels engaged in foreign trade alone which only come home once in four years in order to be re-surveyed by Lloyds for their classification to be maintained. We have to be very careful that we do not do anything, by way of retaliation, or fiscal war, or discrimination of a damaging character, which would do more harm than good, but that is only an additional reason for examining, with great care and rapidity, the very problems with which we are faced. I can tell my right hon. Friend and those who, like himself, are mainly interested in the liner service, that we are taking into account the disabilities under which they labour and that we shall, if necessary, take steps to see that they get fair play at all events within our inter-Imperial trade.
I regret on many grounds that it has not been possible to cover more of this subject in the course of the Debate. It is only due to the luck of the ballot that my hon. Friend was able to raise it today, but we were bound to make a statement sooner or later on the subject, and I welcome this opportunity. I welcome

it all the more because we are dealing, not only with a trade, but with a national subject. Other countries—and I think it as well that they should know what our mind is—have a full right to pursue the shipping policy that they think best suited to their needs, though we may have just cause for complaint when action is taken against the spirit, if not against the letter, of our commercial treaties. But we may not always be able to give others privileges which they deny to us. We have been forced to the use of tariffs to protect certain other industries, and we may be forced, reluctantly, to take measures to safeguard our shipping. It would mean a change in the policy which we have tried for so long to maintain, and we should only do it under the stress of necessity, but if we do it, we shall do it unflinchingly. To us, an island people dependent in peace and war on sea communications, an adequate mercantile marine is the first necessity of our existence, and we have no intention of allowing its existence to be imperilled.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 34.

Division No. 23.]
AYES.
 [7.27 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarke, Frank
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clarry, Reginald George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Gibson, Charles Granville


Alexander, Sir William
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Conant, R. J. E.
Gledhill, Gilbert


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cook, Thomas A.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Crooke, J. Smedley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cross, R. H.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Atholl, Duchess of
Crossley, A. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Grimston, R. V.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Curry, A. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Denville, Alfred
Hanley, Dennis A.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Dickie, John P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Harbord, Arthur


Blindell, James
Duggan, Hubert John
Hartland, George A.


Boulton, W. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Headlam, Lieut.-col. Cuthbert M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eimley, Viscount
Hepworth, Joseph


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Browne, Captain A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hornby, Frank


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Home. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Horobin, Ian M.


Burnett, John George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.Sir, A. (Birm.,W.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Chapman, Col, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Jamieson, Douglas


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Christie, James Archibald
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Munro, Patrick
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Ker, J. Campbell
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stanley Lord (Lancaster. Fylde)


Knight, Holford
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stones, James


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lees-Jones, John
Pearson, William G.
Strauss, Edward A.


Levy, Thomas
Panny, Sir George
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Summersby, Charles H.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Petherick, M.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Templeton, William P.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'Pt'n, Bliston)
Thompson, Luke


McCorquodale, M. S.
Pike, Cecil F.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Potter, John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Train, John


McKeag, William
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Tree, Ronald


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ray, Sir William
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rea, Walter Russell
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
White, Henry Graham


Mander, Geoffrey le, M.
Renwick, Major Gustay A.
Whyte, Jardlne Bell


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rickards, George William
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Robinson, John Roland
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Martin, Thomas B.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Withers, Sir John James


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Womersley, Walter James


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard



Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Dr. Leech and Mr. Storey.


Morrison, William Shephard
Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-In-F.)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Buchanan, George
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Willlams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Main Question again proposed.

Lieut-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN rose—

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

INTERNATIONAL POLICE FORCE.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move,
That this House would welcome a declaration by His Majesty's Government of their willingness to consider the formation of an international police force tinder the control of the League of Nations with a view to increased security and the better maintenance of world order.
I am very glad to have the opportunity of going over the top on this subject
to-night with my hon. and gallant Friend, although it may be that all we shall endeavour to do on this occasion is to have an aerial reconnaissance. When any new proposal of this kind comes before the House it generally goes through three stages. It is first ignored and treated with silence; when that attitude can no longer be taken, an attempt is made to ridicule it; and at last it reaches the stage of serious discussion, such as took place in another place last week. I venture to think that to-night we are going to give the matter serious attention from the many points of view that will no doubt be put forward. I am fully conscious that opinion varies in all parties on this subject, but there is a measure of support for an international police force in all
three parties. It is the official policy of the Labour party, and in the Conservative and Liberal parties there is a measure of support, although I have no means of estimating it. It may surprise some that those who are passionately devoted to the preservation of peace should be prepared to consider in any circumstances the use of force. I want to say at once that there is nothing illogical in that. I claim to be a realist in this matter, and what one has to recognise is that we cannot maintain peace and order in the word merely by passing pious resolutions and trusting in the good will of the people to carry them out. It is merely a question of the right use of force. It is clear that for many generations, for hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years to come, force will rule in the world to some extent. Is it hot better, therefore, that that force should be at the disposal of the judge, of some independent authority, rather than at the disposal of the parties to the dispute as has been the case in the past? We might just as well pass laws in this country and then disband the police force and trust in the good will of the population to preserve them and carry them out. I believe that the increasing gravity of the international situation—and I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the gravity of the crisis in which we find ourselves—is forcing us to consider any method, any way out that we can see, however contrary it may be to our past habits and conditions. I believe that people are being compelled now to give consideration to the question of whether the League ought not to be supplied in some way with the necessary teeth in order to see that its decisions are carried out.
It was the hope of many, if not most of us, that through the conciliatory machinery of the League of Nations, by the development of a special technique, and by the will to agree, gradually broadening down from precedent to precedent, we should find in course of time such a development of good will in the world that the nations would consent to disarm because they felt there was nothing to fear. There is no doubt that these hopes were at their highest during the period when the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance was being discussed,
and the Protocol; and, above all, during those really splendid days when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) was Foreign Secretary, those Locarno days when he co-operated in such a happy manner with Briand and Streseman; and, again, during the period when my right hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. A. Henderson) was at the Foreign Office. Those were the periods when the hopes of the League developing on peaceable lines stood at their highest. The League did a great deal in bringing wars to an end or preventing them between small Powers. It is interesting to recall that in the dispute between Greece and Bulgaria, an ad hoc police force composed of certain navies was definitely agreed upon by the Council of the League, though it was not brought into operation because the necessity did not actually arise. That was the embryo ad hoc international force which is implicit in Article 16 of the Covenant.
It was often said that that is all right for the small Powers, but what will happen when there is a dispute in which a great Power is involved? Unfortunately we know only too well the answer. There was a dispute in which Japan was the aggressor and was found guilty by the highest tribunal in the world—the Assembly of the League of Nations—without a dissentient voice, but nothing whatever has happened to Japan. The whole collective machinery of the League broke down and failed to operate. That has made many people think that we are coming to a choice possibly between the continuance of the collective system plus a specially organised force, and a return to the old theory of the balance of power and a race of armaments.
I want, first, to put before the House, not the practical plan that I am going to ask them to devote their minds to tonight as an immediate issue, but the vision of a coming necessity as many see it, though I do not regard it as practical at the moment. There are many persons in this country who are coming round to the view that, if we are to prevent chaos in the world, we must have an international authority with certain of the attributes of sovereignty, with the power to decide, not with unanimity, but by a majority, possibly, of two-thirds or three-quarters. It should be a tribunal that
had the right to settle disputes. If they were justiciable, they would go to the Permanent Court of International Justice, and, if not, they would be referred to some impartial body of which the Lytton Commission is a very good illustration. It would be the duty of this international authority to bring the parties before the court and to see that the findings of the court were carried out, and not to be aggressive or offensive in any sense.
It is quite clear that the question of revision of treaties has to be dealt with at some time or other. Article 19 cannot remain for ever unused on the international statute book, and we should get, through some such machinery as I am sketching out, the possibility of progress along the lines of revision. No doubt this international authority would first of all apply the most lenient possible means. There would be diplomatic pressure, financial pressure and economic pressure, and finally, if they were no good, we should have to have a reserve of pressure, such as the police have to use inside a country, to be used in a different form in the world. Certainly under such a broad and large scheme as I am referring to now we should have to have all the ordinary forces—Army, Navy and Air Force.
It will be suggested, no doubt, that such a thing is entirely Utopian, and could not take place for the reason that no such surrender of sovereignty, even to the limited degree required in this case, would be contemplated or allowed. Tf we were to cast back our minds several hundred years into the minds of the then people of Scotland, England and Wales we should find that a suggestion that they were ever going to pool their sovereignty and join together in an authority to be exercised in the United Kingdom was something entirely unthinkable. But it has happened, and I venture to think that, on a larger scale, it is bound to happen again in the history of mankind. I think that if we do have to take what may seem drastic decisions in the future we shall not be held back by any clinging to the traditions of the past, however fond they may be to us. Heroic measures may well become absolutely essential, and when my right hon. Friend makes reference in his Amendment to such a scheme as this being a grave disaster, we have to look at the grave disaster
that may be facing the world on the other side. In this life it is always a question of a balance of risks, and it may be that there are graver risks and disasters than giving real sanctions and authority to the international power of the League of Nations.
I will go further for a moment, and envisage briefly how this scheme would operate. It is suggested by those who have worked it out from a technical point of view that the international authority should be armed—and of course it would all be done by agreement and only by agreement—with all those weapons which are forbidden to Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, that is, all the post-War weapons. The international authority, therefore, would have handed over to it submarines, gas, tanks, aeroplanes, artillery, the newest types of ships, and all new discoveries. The nations themselves, for carrying out their own police purposes either at home or abroad, would have the same weapons that they had in 1914, which they then found perfectly adequate for their purposes. They would therefore have rifles, machine guns, armoured cars, pre-War artillery, and the older naval weapons. We should also have quotas of armed forces kept in each State to come to the support of the international force when called upon to do so. It may be suggested that they would not be likely to turn up when required. That is always a very great difficulty, but when it is realised that those nations would have given as hostages all their more powerful weapons, and would also be paying an annual sum of money for the maintenance of the authority and its international force, it is very unlikely that they would act in any other way than in complete loyalty to the scheme.
The question is very properly asked: What happens if your international authority gets beaten? I venture to say that it would not get beaten, for the very reason that one would never contemplate starting an international police force of any kind unless there were overwhelming support and strength on its side and those who stood out were small and ineffective in numbers and in power. But if, in spite of all that, the international police force were beaten, we should not be in any worse position than to-day, we should be exactly in the same position as that towards which, I am afraid, we are moving at the present time. I do not
know whether, in the difficult and trying negotiations, as I believe, which are going to arise with Germany over disarmament in Europe, a stage is going to arise when it might be possible to say to Germany: "Now we can satisfy in a very new and realistic way your claims to equality. We are going to give you a chance of participating in an international force for the maintenance of world order as an equal, with all the attributes to which I have referred." Strange things are happening in these days, and I do not know that it is inconceivable that a situation of that kind might arise under certain circumstances, and if it does I trust it will not be overlooked.
At the beginning of the Disarmament Conference, France brought forward a plan for an international force, and was very keen on it for some time, and there would not be any lack of sympathy there, though I quite agree that the idea of a tribunal for the revision of treaties certainly was not in the French plan, and it would require some pressure to make them agree to a scheme of that kind. I believe the inescapable logic of events may well force us to make changes which are hardly dreamt of at the present time. The League of Nations is simply a new form of alliance, an alliance of all those countries which are prepared to back a collective system, and it may be that in the near future we shall have to press on with that alliance and associate together all those countries in the world—and there are a great many, the vast majority—which do believe in that system and are prepared to back it up by every possible means. I understand from the Press that the Government are likely in the near future to have certain proposals made by Italy. I have no doubt that those proposals will receive the most courteous consideration, and that if they are found to strengthen and increase the power and influence of the League they will receive every sympathy and support. It is not likely that a proposal such as I am referring to will come forward, but something not less startling may be put forward and I hope the Government will say to Italy that while they are prepared to consider sympathetically any proposals she may make for the improvement of the government of the League, we do stand unhesitatingly behind the collective authority of the League of
Nations, which is the pivot and the basis now and in the future of the whole of our foreign policy, that we stand for the rights of the small nations—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The Motion which the hon. Member is moving is limited to the desirability of setting up an international police force, and he must not go into the general question of the League of Nations.

Mr. MANDER: I was only making that point in passing, and I hope the Government will try to make it clear that they stand against any dictatorship of the great Powers. May I come to what I am going to ask the House to consider as a definite practical issue, capable of being put into force at the present time? I want to base it on the unassailable foundation of the Government's own disarmament policy. What is that policy? I think some Members are going to be a little startled when they hear how far—and I think rightly—the Government have already gone. Their policy, of course, is the internationalisation of civil aviation and the abolition of military aviation. That is the long view, the far picture. My hon. Friend himself has said at Geneva that that is the hope of the British Government, and that he himself is particularly keen on it, and I venture to say that the formation of a small aerial force of fighting machines is the logical consequence of the Government's own policy for the purpose of dealing with the real danger of the conversion of civil aircraft to bombing purposes by a traitor nation.
The Government's policy in the draft convention is in two parts. First of all there is the proposal that we should bring forward the one Power standard with regard to the air by wisely and properly bringing down other nations to our standard, instead of increasing the number of aeroplanes; and with a weight of less than three tons unladen we should have this country, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United States of America with 500 aeroplanes each. I presume—and I am very sorry if it is so—that if the Government's present disarmament policy were carried out it would also mean that in the long run Germany would have 500 aeroplanes too. I think that follows logically, and that means a certain amount of re-armament. I have
here the draft convention and will read two passages. Article 35 says:
The Permanent Disarmament Commission set up under Article 64 of the present Convention shall immediately devote itself to the working out of the best possible schemes providing for
(a) the complete abolition of military and naval aircraft, which must be dependent on the effective supervision of civil aviation to prevent its misuse for military purposes.
That is the first task of the Permanent Commission. Lower down it says:
In any case the measures referring to civil aviation set out in Annex II will apply during the period of the present Convention.
What are they? They are rather startling and I think very good. Number 1(e) dealing with civil aircraft says that they undertake
To allow duly qualified representatives of the League of Nations to have free access at all reasonable times to all civil aircraft, for the purpose of ascertaining that such aircraft do not in fact infringe the prohibitions contained in paragraph (a) above.
NOTE.—The effect of these proposals would be to establish, under the direction of the League, a complete international register of all civil aircraft—comparable to the registers of shipping at present maintained by Lloyd's and similar organisations.
The House will appreciate that the Government are committed during the preliminary period, when all the big Powers will have 500 aeroplanes, to allow inspectors of the League of Nations to come over to this country and inspect all our civil machines to see that they are being properly used and not diverted to other purposes. I think that is a wise proposal, though it is hardly appreciated as it ought to be. Many hon. Members will doubtless say that it is impossible to provide any effective scheme for the international control of civil aviation. It is very easy to say that a thing cannot be done if one is not keen, for sentimental or other reasons, to see it carried out. That arises again and again, but the will of man has been able to overcome even greater obstacles than the solving of such problems, which I believe could be solved, if there was the will and determination to do so.
One of the most valuable documents on the subject is the French Memorandum upon International Civil Air Transport of 14th April, 1932, where the whole thing is dealt with in great detail. I imagine
that you would have to put all commercial air transport, both goods and passenger, under international control by means of some such scheme as you have in the Postal Union at the present time, where national units would be maintained but would work together for certain purposes. Those new units would form a sort of public utility company of international form, and there would be the amalgamation of all existing civil aircraft boards, including, of course, Imperial Airways. The new body would deal with the licensing and control of all machines, aerodromes, personnel and private machines. It may be said that it is a very far-reaching thing to imagine that that would ever be consented to. I may remind the House that, according to the Government's own disarmament plan, there will be general supervision by an international staff of all armaments in every country, and that the Government's plan is to bring League of Nations inspectors over to Woolwich, to our dockyards and to our aircraft factories, in order, very properly, to see that we are playing the game. What I am saying is not in any way inconsistent with the Government's own policy.
Nothing would do more for civil aviation than to free it from the chains of the military machine. Subsidies are being paid now from 35 per cent. to 90 per cent., and nothing is more suitable for world control and development than civil aviation. I believe that in spite of your international board you could maintain your national units and your particularly British and very admirable way of operating. Every service would still operate, in spite of the international scheme, but it would, of course, be subject to control and inspection by the international staff, and that would be the main difference.
The next point is as to how we are to deal with a traitor nation who, when the Government's policy is carried out to the full and all military aircraft is abolished, converts its civil machines by putting in bomb racks, and uses them for bombing purposes. Some answer has to be given to that question. It is a real danger. Anything that I say is not based upon my own imperfect knowledge, but upon expert advice—of some experts, at any rate. What you need is a force of trained fighters, or interceptors as they are sometimes called, working under the con-
trol of the League of Nations. They must be trained, because a highly trained and disciplined force is always capable of dealing most effectively with an untrained and hastily improvised force such as those civil machines would be. Probably fighters would be quite sufficient, but if it were found that bombing machines were required in order to destroy the others in their nests, certainly let that be done. I am inclined to think that fighters would be sufficient. The force should be under the control of the League of Nations, because if you allow each country to have its own force of fighters, you would get exactly the same suspicion and competition that you have with separate national forces at the present time.
Let us take the worst case that would arise. Let us suppose that machines of the League of Nations were stationed, as they would be, throughout Europe, and that some were seized by one particular country to be used for bombing purposes—for which they would be of very little use, because they would be so light—or to he used as an escort. They would very quickly be dealt with by the greatly superior numbers of the fighters stationed elsewhere. I want to face the main practical difficulties—that is the whole point of this Debate—against the working out of a plan of this kind. I imagine that when the time conies for the destruction, in accordance with the Government's own plan—I cannot too often repeat that—on all military aircraft, the nation would hand over such machines as were suitable for the purpose to the League of Nations. The League would then enlist suitable pilots and air staff officers to control the force. There would be a very large number of people available in every country. I know quite well that such a job and such a position would not appeal to many officers, who would far rather fight in a purely national force, but I am equally sure that there are a number of highly trained officers to whom the idea of serving in support of world order would make a very strong appeal. I do not believe that there would be difficulties in enlisting the services at once of the right people in a body of this kind.
The question may be asked: "Who would command?" How would you get over that difficulty? The one person who would not command would be a national
of the aggressor country. All nationals of the aggressor country would at once be suspended from duty. I think that that is an obviously wise provision, though it might not really be necessary, but I want to be on the safe side. I might point out that, in the case of the Ulster Rebellion in 1914, it was put to the British officers who were in Ireland then that they would not be expected to serve if their homes were in Ulster. That is an exactly similar case to that which I am putting. That is a wise and a humane precaution. It would be undesirable to have a national of one of the Great European Powers. The recent scheme for dealing with Jewish refugees from Germany, was in charge of an American. I imagine that if you wanted to do so you could find very competent air officers in America to take command of a force of the kind that I am suggesting. You could also find competent officers in the smaller States.
What is the actual history of international police forces? History proves conclusively that no practical difficulties will arise. Let me give you one or two instances. The Duke of Marlborough, when he was carrying cut his great military exploits in the wars of the Spanish Succession, had no less than six different nationalties fighting in his forces. The Duke of Wellington fought the Battle of Waterloo with British, German, Belgian and Dutch people in his forces, and they did not misunderstand his orders. There was no language difficulty there. They knew how to advance as a single unit, and they knew how to win. The same would apply to fighting in similar circumstances in the future. The Shanghai Defence Force has seven different nation alities in it. The force which went to Peking in the time of the Boxer rising had eight different nationalities. The Swiss Army at the present time has three different nationalities in it. The French Foreign Legion, which is often referred to, has a great many different nationalities.
I was reading a few days ago in a Service journal a proposal that the French Legion—this is not my proposal—should be used as the basis of an international police force. It was pointed out that it was started 150 years ago by Jacobite Scotsmen and Irish Catholics, that when it was turned into the French
Foreign Legion about 100 years ago it had all the high prestige and tradition of a British regiment, and that is possesses a very high esprit de corps at the present time. I mention that as an interesting point. It is known that at the time of the Great War one of the first American brigades to come over had Germans in it, and they had no difficulty whatever in rendering most effective service on the Western Front. In all these, and in other examples which could be given, the question of language difficulty is ridiculous when brought forward as an objection. In any case, people can learn more than one language if necessary.
"Where," it is asked, "would these bodies be stationed?" I suggest that they would be stationed first of all in the mandated areas and territories, such as Dantzig. I contemplate also that you would have to have in different parts of Europe special stations where different sections of the force would be. You would have to lease specially selected territory by agreement from those different countries. There is a precedent for that. Washington, the capital of the United States, is on special territory not in any of the other States, the district of Columbia. In the case of the capital of Australia, a special State of Canberra was formed, which is not part of any of the other States. You would have to have places with extra-territorial rights stationed about in different parts of Europe.
A complaint was made the other day by the Foreign Secretary when he said, "You could not expect nationals of a country to keep the secrets of all sorts of plans. Would not they refer to their own war offices and tell them all about those secrets?" Would there be many secrets to hide? The one and only object of your international police force would not be aggressive—never. The force would simply be there in order to go into the air and attack and destroy the converted aircraft of other countries. There is nothing much to hide there. If it were a question of an intelligence system that would know what is being done, that cuts both ways. It might be that your international force would have something to say about what was going on in the potentially aggressor countries.
Then there is the question of the arms supply. Possibly ultimately you might arrive at the situation where the League had its own arms factory, but for the time being it would be perfectly safe if the League drew supplies of aeroplanes and other things from the factories of a number of different countries. The League might order them to specification, so as not to be dependent upon any one particular country.
It is very interesting to note that the proposal to which I am referring was before the Disarmament Conference this year. A scheme was suggested on these lines; in February and March last, the French Government proposed it and M. Pierre Cot fought for it brilliantly, vigorously and as hard as he could. The Spanish, the Belgians, and the Scandinavians all supported it. The only countries that were against it were Italy and Germany—I am not speaking of this country. At a later stage, on 29th May, the Germans indicated that in certain circumstances even their objections might be overcome.
I believe that this policy is the logical development of the Government's own policy. I claim to have tried to face some of the difficulties, because there are great difficulties and we can only overcome them, if they are capable of being overcome, by boldly facing them and getting down to brass tacks. I submit that this Motion is essentially moderate. It is asking the Government to consider the formation of such an international police force. It is not asking very much of the Government that they should consider a proposal made by other people. I rather detected a tendency for them to regard it as their whole duty in life to listen too much to the proposals of other countries, and to have nothing to say themselves. I am therefore not asking them to do anything which will strain their consciences or their policy by merely listening to proposals of this kind that might be put forward.
I understand that at one period of his career, not so very many years ago, the Foreign Secretary himself was in favour of an international force of some kind, so I should expect that he would listen the more sympathetically to any proposal of the kind that might arise. I venture
to ask my hon. Friend, whose zeal, devotion and sincerity in the matter of disarmament are so well known, and for which too high praise could not possibly be given, will make as sympathetic a reply as he can, because I firmly believe that this matter of an international police force in some form, small or large, is going to be the fundamental issue in world politics in the years that are to come, and I commend it to the House now in the modest form of this Motion.

8.16 p.m.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I beg to second the Motion.
I am all the happier in doing so because my hon. Friend who moved the Motion and myself do not often see alike on political matters. Another reason why I am happy to support this Motion is that I put down a Motion in similar terms nearly two years ago myself, but I was less lucky in the Ballot and it never came up for discussion. The idea of an international police force must, it seems to me, be considered from two angles. In the first place, you must discuss the general principle, and see whether it is desirable to have such a force or not. You cannot really talk about an international air force "in the air"; you must know what part it is to play in the scheme of things, and whether it is necessary to fortify and strengthen the League of Nations. If you are satisfied as to the general principle, you must then see whether it is technically a feasible plan.
Let me deal first with the general principle. Since its inception the League of Nations has been the subject and the battleground of two opposing philosophies, which I will call, for convenience' sake, the Continental thesis and the British thesis. The Continental thesis is that the League can never be effective if it has not the sanction of force behind its decisions. That point was put very clearly not long ago by M. Daladier, the late French Prime Minister, a well-known advocate of peace, who said:
Justice can only prevail when it is reinforced by strength, for strength alone can impose respect for justice. This will be so so long as men are not angels, and nothing permits us to hope that they will become angels within a measurable time.
That is the Continental thesis. The Secretary of State for Air stated what I would call the British thesis with great clarity in another place on the 7th December.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that he must not refer to a Debate which has taken place during the current Session in another place.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It has been made very clear within the last few weeks what the policy of the Government was with reference to Geneva. As I understand I am debarred from quoting the actual words used, and am compelled to paraphrase, I would say that it would seem that in the view of the Government Geneva is to be merely a debating assembly, a place where in case of difficulties the nations assemble to discuss those difficulties—nothing more. That has been definitely stated. That thesis is the one that has prevailed at Geneva ever since the foundation of the League. It seems to me that it is really time to examine whether, after the League has been in existence for 13 years, that policy can be considered a success, either from the point of view of the League itself or from our own point of view.
We were told that it was necessary to carry out this policy of only considering the League of Nations as a kind of talking-house for the sake of bringing America into the League. But to-day the United States is as far from joining the League of Nations as it ever was, Japan and Germany have both left the League, and France and this country are the only two world Powers that still belong to it. The attempt to reach some measure of international disarmament has completely failed. Such is the dismal result of 13 years' work at Geneva. There are cracks in every one of the international walls, and it would seem that it is so draughty at Geneva that nobody can sit there in comfort. There is a complete lack of security everywhere. The prestige of the League, and, incidentally, our own prestige, have sunk so low that Italy, whose voice grows louder as ours becomes silent, declares that only a change in the League calculated to destroy its democratic character can save it. That is what is happening at Geneva. Here in London we are told that Geneva can only
be used as a place for common deliberation. Deliberation on what? On the obsequies that are to be pronounced at the funeral of the League? I speak as a real friend of the League of Nations. I do not despair; I will not give up; I will cling to the last to the one good thing that emerged from the War. But I would ask the Government, if they believe in the League, if they wish it to be saved, whether they ought not to reconsider the policy which has resulted in the present state of affairs?
There is another point that ought to be considered. Should we not ask ourselves whether the conception of Geneva as a mere debating chamber, a kind of Oxford Union, is consistent with the Covenant of the League? The principles embodied in the Covenant, although they restrict the use of force, do not in any way forbid sanctions. Far from it. In Clauses 10, 12, 16 and others, they are implied. The truth is that the British thesis has been an attempt to make the League something different from that organisation which was prescribed in the Covenant. Let me utter a warning drawn from the pages of history. There has been at least one League of Nations before our own, the Amphictyony of ancient Greece. It met at Delphis, and we meet at Geneva. The delegates of the different Greek States met in conclave to discuss the affairs of their respective States. That assembly would have met with the entire approval of the Government, because they only met to deliberate. They could not do anything else. They talked and voted until finally they quarrelled. Some left the assembly. They did not slam the doors as they went—there were no doors to slam—but they shook the dust of Delphis off their sandals. Then some States, members of the League, rebelled, but there was no force at the disposal of the League to deal with them. There was no control over any excessive manufacture of bows and arrows that there might have been. So finally the League itself broke down in disorder and in war. This led to a long-drawn-out struggle known as the Sacred Wars, which in the end led to the domination of a strong external Power—Rome. Hon. Members would do well to ponder that episode.
I fully realise that the Government fear the creation of a kind of super-State,
and perhaps they see in this international police force the beginning of such a super-State. I do not believe any of us really want that, but we must admit and accept that, when we gave our adherence to the League, we did in fact surrender some part of our sovereign rights in favour of international action. This Motion is an attempt to find a bridge between the policy of using the League merely as a debating chamber and the Continental policy. What is needed is to give the nations confidence, and the British thesis has so far conspicuously failed to give them that confidence. It was, in fact, bound to do so. An international police force of itself will not give complete security, but in conjunction with another step which I have often advocated in this House, which is that we should implement our obligations under the Covenant and go to the help of an attacked State, I believe we could achieve security and make disarmament a reality. Then my hon. Friend said you cannot escape from the fact that we at home consider it necessary to have a police force at the back of our Parliament and of our Law Courts. All that we who are supporting this Motion contend is that this is equally essential in international affairs. So much for general principles.
I now come to the second aspect of the question. Is an international police force technically feasible or not? I do not hesitate to say that the answer to that question is Yes, provided that you confine the idea to the creation of an international air force. I think the technical difficulties in the way of the creation of an international land force, or indeed an international navy, are so considerable as to make the proposal impracticable at the moment. The technical difficulties in the way of an international air force could, I believe, be overcome were there a real desire to do so. I believe, however, that it would be necessary, in order to make such a force effective, to restrict its activities regionally, that is, for the present purposes to restrict it to Europe. We cannot deal with the whole world at once. If we have succeeded in doing something towards solving the European problem, we shall have done a very great deal. There is, however, one great obstacle to an international police force, and that is that the Council as at present
constituted is incapable of administering or directing such a force. Some machinery, therefore, must be devised for dealing with the question. Force in the hands of the Council as at present constituted would merely lead to confusion. The idea evokes a recollection of my own childhood when my grandmother and my great aunt attempted to direct the efforts of the village fire brigade when their house was on fire.
You have, therefore, in the first place to reorganise the Council of the League of Nations, not as the Italians would have it reorganised, by giving control to the great Powers, but by the creation of a special body which would administer and control the international police. Secondly, the value of such an international police force will depend upon its prompt action. It is absolutely essential that it should act with the greatest possible promptitude. To do that you must have an automatic definition of an act of aggression, so that when such an act is committed the international force will be in a position to act immediately against the aggressor. You cannot have security without immediate help being forthcoming for the victim without palaver and without argument. It used to be said that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a definition of an act of aggression. While our pundits were scratching their heads, the Soviets found one, and they have embodied such a definition in the treaties which they have recently made with neighbouring Powers.
The third condition is that an international police force should be stronger than any force it is likely to have to meet. It might be possible that the various national air forces might be called up as auxiliaries to the international police force, but the nucleus must be, so it seems to me, a League of Nations air force wearing League of Nations uniform and under League of Nations command. It would be recruited by voluntary enlistment just as the Foreign Legion is today, and I have no doubt whatsoever that in a short time it would be one of the most popular services in the world. The command would not, I think, be very difficult to organise. Time prevents me from going into this. Furthermore, I can but emphasise what my hon. Friend said concerning how you would deal with mem-
bers of this force whose countries were involved in a dispute. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that it is extremely funny, but, speaking with a good deal of experience and knowledge of the Foreign Legion, I know that when the Foreign Legion was sent to France, the very large number of Germans who were members of the Legion were simply left in Morocco where they continued to serve as members of the Legion. The difficulty was very easily overcome.
There are two methods which would be very effective in ensuring that an international air force should be stronger than any opponents it was likely to meet. You could either give it a monopoly of machines over a certain horse power and with a climbing capacity greater than was normally required by civil aviation, or, better still, adopt the suggestion that was put forward the other day in this House by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasay (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who, I gathered, advocated that all civil aviation should be compelled to use diesel engines. I would adopt this suggestion by saying that the international air force should have an absolute monopoly of petrol engines. I think the suggestion is an excellent one and meets the case absolutely, because, after all, what you want is to establish the same difference between civil aviation and an international air force as that which exists to-day between merchant ships and battleships. It is neither practicable nor desirable to internationalise civil aviation or even the great international lines of communication.
I very much regret that the Socialist party have swallowed that section of the French proposals whole. I think that the suggestion would meet with the strongest, and in many ways justifiable, opposition. I would only consider it if it were absolutely necessary to do so, and we could not achieve our objective in any other way. Personally, I do a certain amount of flying, and I would be very sorry to have to do it in anything but an English machine. There are very many technical problems in connection with an international air force which others far better qualified than T have studied and have met. I cannot discuss these for lack of time, but none of the problems offered are insuperable given good will, but a great deal more work, thought, and good
will will be necessary before this scheme or a similar one can be put into practice. I beg the Government to realise that the time of meeting this suggestion with ridicule is past. Let them think of the storm of laughter that there would have been 15 years ago had anybody suggested the idea of flying across the world. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both poured scorn on the idea of an international air force, but their banter was as nothing to that of the right hon. Gentleman, who recently led the wandering Liberal tribes into opposition. To him an international police force was nothing else but the Archangel of the Apocalypse. It would, of course, be too much to expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept the suggestion at once. I am not nearly as good at Biblical quotations as he is, but I seem to remember that the Lord had to call Samuel three times before he would listen. I very much deprecate the idea of this question being treated as a party question. It is worthy of careful and unbiased study by the best brains in all parties in this House. Finally I would warn those who are opposing this Motion, that to emphasise its technical difficulties when what they are opposed to is the principle, is intellectually dishonest.

8.45 p.m.

Viscount CRANBORNE: When my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander), a short time ago, announced in the House that he proposed to call attention to the subject of an international police force, I am afraid that in some quarters there were murmurs of protest and sounds of derision. I must say that I did not think those murmurs were justified or justifiable. Whatever hon. Members who take those views may feel, this is a subject which has captivated the interest of the public, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for having introduced the Resolution. But if I feel that I owe him a debt of gratitude, there are some of us who must profoundly regret the form which his Resolution has taken. I had hoped, and I expect that many of us had hoped, that it would be a general discussion on the subject of an international police force, and on that subject he would have found a great deal of sympathy and open minds in very wide portions of the House.
No one who has considered the subject can deny that the world is becoming internationalised and that it is being welded closer and closer together. If we go a long way back in history, we find that this country of England was originally seven little kingdoms. In time they were combined into one kingdom, with one force to maintain law and order. Later, there was added the countries of Scotland and Wales, and if we pass further on we find that these three became one unit in a vast confederation of the British Empire. Nor is there any reason to suppose that that process, which has been going on throughout history, is going to stop now. On the contrary, the increasing communications of various kinds are going to accelerate the process and, perhaps sooner than we imagine, all nations may become parts of one vast world confederation, perhaps not in our lifetime, but possibly in the lifetime of our children or our children's children.
If therefore the hon. Member had confined his Resolution to the general principle of an international police force, I do not think we should have had any reason to object, but, unfortunately, that is not the direction in which his Resolution aims. He is not looking into the future. He is looking at the present. His Motion calls attention to the necessity of an international police force and states:
That this House would welcome a declaration by His Majesty's Government of their willingness to consider the formation of an international police force.
I take it that that means at once, in some form or other.

Mr. MANDER: In some form.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I do not mean a fully-fledged army, but the hon. Member would like to see it in operation at once and that his proposal should have some part in the negotiations now going on in regard to disarmament as a practical proposition. If that is so, it is highly important that we should go into the question of what this international police force really is. That is what most of us came here this evening to consider. So far as the air is concerned we have had a little light and leading, but I am still very vague as to what functions an international police force as a whole is going
to perform. The very name is liable to mislead people. My hon. Friend said that he did not object to force, which was rather surprising to hear, for the object of the name, "international police force," seems to me to be intended to assure a great many nervous people that there is going to be nothing military about the force. It is going to be like the car in Mr. Belloc's poem:
Designed to captivate and charm,
Much rather than to raise alarm
In any English boy.
Whatever the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution may have said here, the general impression that has been made upon people with whom I have talked is that this force, even if it is not going to be exactly like a very large detachment of the Metropolitan Police, has this is common with the Metropolitan Police, that it is going to maintain order by moral authority rather than by force. It is going, as it were, to hold up international conflicts by merely putting up its hand. But when we are considering whether an international force will have that moral authority we have to ask ourselves: what is it that gives moral authority to any police force, whether national or international? Why is it that, for instance, in this country the police force find their task comparatively easy. It is not any special virtue in a constable or an inspector that makes people obey, but because they have behind them the vast weight of public opinion in this country. Every body wants the police to win, and, except a very small criminal class, they are willing to help them in any way they can. Therefore, we find members of a small force, one or two constables in a widely-spread countryside, can keep law and order, and probably have very little to do.

Mr. MANDER: It is because in the long run they have an overwhelming force behind them.

Viscount CRANBORNE: Possibly; but the fact is that nowadays the police get their moral authority mainly by the acquiescence of the general population in the maintenance of law and order. If they had not that moral authority, how very much more difficult their task would be. This point is dealt with very clearly in the new play by Mr. George Bernard Shaw. I do not know whether hon. Mem-
bers have been to see that play, but if they are feeling very strong and well and they think they can endure four uninterrupted hours of the exposition of Mr. Shaw's views, I strongly advise them to go and see it. In the play the Prime Minister of the day proposes to introduce some legislation which, in Mr. Shaw's opinion, would have been very unpopular with the working class. The Prime Minister congratulates himself in the Cabinet room in Downing Street that the police are on his side, and he will, therefore, have no difficulty in getting his legislation accepted; but the commissioner of police interrupts him, and says: "If you have not the people behind you, your police force will not Be nearly large enough. You would need two constables in every street, and even then it would not be large enough."
And to see that this is not a mere flight of fancy on the part of Mr. Shaw, we have only to look at the United States to-day, where in certain districts the police have not the same moral authority that the police have in this country, and consequently we read of people being dragged out of gaols and hanged or burned alive before their eyes, and the police have not the moral authority to stop it. Therefore, it is true to say that, whether you are talking of things internationally or nationally, the most essential qualification of a police force which is to rule by moral authority will be the over-whelming support of public opinion. Does my hon. Friend and those who support the Motion feel that that condition is satisfied in the case of an international police force to-day? In this country we are accustomed to accepting the moral authority of the police; but suppose the British Government were to make such a public declaration and follow it up by approaching the various countries, the Germans, the Poles, the Japanese, the Americans—all great nations bursting with national pride and at the same time highly suspicious of their neighbours. Do hon. Members think that we should find not only the Governments of those countries but the general population at all anxious at the present time to lay down what they consider to be their absolutely essential armaments and put themselves under the protection of an international police force?

Mr. MANDER: I endeavoured to point out that at the Disarmament Conference
every country with the exception of Italy and Germany in the long run expressed themselves in sympathy.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I listened to the hon. Member and I noticed that Germany was not in his list, Italy was not in it, Japan was not in it, and the United States was not in it. That is a considerable proportion of the great Powers. Up to now we have had the greatest difficulty in getting other nations to agree even to some small measure of disarmament; and that is as far as they are likely to go at the present time. Take the case of Japan. Japan has already been offered an international police force. One of the proposals in the Lytton Report was that there should be set up an international gendarmarie in order to maintain law and order in Manchuria. The Japanese turned it down immediately, and I am afraid that they are not likely to accept such a proposal as this at the present time. And if the Japanese will not accept this international police force it is certain that their neighbours will not, and their neighbours are the United States, China, and Russia, a very large proportion of the population of the world. I feel, therefore, that a police force of this kind, based on moral authority, is out of the question at the moment.
My hon. Friends may say that they do not base it on moral authority but on force. In that case, what their proposal really amounts to is an army or an air force, just like an army or an air force of any individual nation, but rather larger and rather stronger. If it is going to be an army, and I do not think that we can exempt an army from the discussion, as the Motion simply says an international police force—it does not say specially an air force—if it is going to be an international army, then it will have to have big guns and tanks and bombs.
Only this year we had a discussion in which exception was taken to the British Government allowing air bombing for police purposes; and who was the hon. Member who took the greatest exception to it; it was the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East. I think he took his stand on the ground of humanity, not because it was done by a national police force. I take it therefore that he will be against bombing by an international police force. His proposal is possibly that it should fly over these places and
drop pamphlets. Otherwise, we must conclude that he has changed strangely since the summer. For if it is not humane for a national air force to bomb Iraq and the North West frontier of India, it is certainly not more humane to do it with an international air force.

Mr. MANDER: I never opposed it on the ground of humanity, I opposed it because it was holding up the Disarmament Conference.

Viscount CRANBORNE: In that case the hon. Member was completely misinformed, because the question never held up the Disarmament Conference for one moment. It was only discussed at one single sitting. But I do not wish to dwell on this point. To return to the main argument; apart from the fact that this army would have to be much larger than any other army or any other air force, it would, moreover, have to be very widely spread and distributed over the whole world. I was interested in the observation of hon. Members who said that this question should be limited to Europe. I am afraid that we must regard such a statement as a great confession of weakness. The real truth is that hon. Members who support this proposal do not believe that this international police force can be worked throughout the world, and that it is gradually being whittled down until it will end by consisting of a few fighting aeroplanes on the Franco-German frontier. But it is not only in Europe that war might break out. Take the two latest wars, that between China and Japan and the war in South America. Neither of these would have been affected by this proposal at all. If you are going to consider an international police force it is quite impossible to consider such a truncated idea. The proposal must embrace the whole world.
A month ago we had a speech which in my opinion did face this problem. It was a speech delivered by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) on foreign affairs. He was no more moderate than the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. On the contrary, as I understood the hon. and learned Member, he wanted to do away with nationality altogether. But at least he had this merit, that he was more logical and more practical than the hon. Members who spoke to-night. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol did not
believe that it was possible at the present time to have an effective international army, and he therefore proposed that national armies should act as detachments of an international force. The hon. and learned Member referred to a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture in which my right hon. Friend said that if Great Britain had taken violent action in the Chino-Japanese dispute it would have brought this country to the verge of war. The hon. and learned Member accepted this statement, but said that it would not have been a very bad thing, because at any rate it would have been a war fought in support of the collective peace system. That is quite logical and much more practical than what is being suggested by the Motion this evening. At the same time, even if it is more logical and practical I cannot feel that it is any more attractive for that reason.
Fifteen years have now passed since the end of the great War, and during those 15 years we have heard a great many hard things said about "the war to end war!" Whatever may be said about the war to end war, there is something far more nonsensical, and that is a war to prevent war. If it were not so serious it would be highly ridiculous to think of the great nations of the world rushing into a conflict in order to prevent war taking place. You might just as well think of a man drowning himself in order to prevent himself being hung. Not only do I believe that such a proposal would not limit war but extend it, but I think that it is contrary to the whole conception of the League in the mind of many of its most ardent supporters. The people of this country do not think that the League of Nations should be a super State. We really regard it as a clearing house for grievances, through which all sorts of disputes can be taken by the various nations, and where the full light of the public opinion of the world can express itself. But supposing this public exposure fails in its effects, I do not think that English people as a whole—and here I represent far more people than my opponents on this question—consider that there is any obligation on the part of every nation to rush to the support of one particular nation. That is the point of view held far more strongly by the French. Indeed, I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for
Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) was really putting forward more the French point of view than the English point of view. The very idea of an international police force has found its place in almost every French plan; the plan for the definition of an aggressor, the idea of far-reaching Continental commitments—all these belong to French ideas and not British.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: My definition of an aggressor was drawn from the Soviets, which represent people I do not generally quote.

Viscount CRANBORNE: But the fact remains that it has always been supported by the French, and was so supported all the time that I was at Geneva. It has always been on the whole, I shall not say opposed by Anglo-Saxon people, but Anglo-Saxon people were very sceptical about it. They do not believe that it is possible to find a definition which is really watertight. The policy of defining the aggressor belongs more to the Latin school of thought than to the Anglo-Saxon school. Our point of view, the point of view of the British—I use that term of set purpose—which has been followed by many Governments in the last 10 years, is a very much more pacific one. They aim at preventing war, or rather, aim at reducing the chances of war, by limiting the offensive weapons at the disposal of an aggressor nation. The point of view which I understand this country has always supported has been that war is a gamble, and a gamble which in the modern world depends on immediate success. For if a war goes on under modern conditions for a long time, it is absolutely certain that every one concerned in it will be ruined. If you can take away from every nation the weapons which make immediate success possible, you greatly reduce the chances of a war taking place, because even the most bellicose nation will not indulge in the gamble.
That is the principle roughly which underlay the Foreign Secretary's resolution on quantitative disarmament; it is the principle which underlay the Draft Convention introduced in March; and it is as far as the people of this country are willing to go at the present time, and as far as I believe they ought to go. There is in this country, as in other countries, a school of thought that is not nearly so much concerned with actual facts as with
theories, which especially likes any theory that has a moral backing. They like to strike what they call a blow for the ultimate good, and they do not really care whether that blow hits anyone or could possibly hit anyone. They do not care if it is just beating the air. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton belongs to that school. I believe that if he and his supporters go into the Lobby in support of this Motion to-night they will have the sensation of Boy Scouts who have done a good action for the day.

Mr. MANDER: The Noble Lord is now trying to kill the discussion by ridicule.

Viscount CRANBORNE: No. I am not; I am not attempting that at all. But I say that the Government and the House cannot support so detached a point of view as that. We are face to face with definite facts, and we are asked by this Motion to bring pressure on the Government to take some definite action. What we have to consider is merely this: Whether the particular action which the Government are asked to take is likely to be useful or practical, or whether it is likely to make more complicated the already complicated disarmament situation. To my mind, for reasons which I have very inadequately put forward, I believe that to ask the Government to do this would not be practical, and for that reason, whatever one may feel about the general principles of an international police force, I must vote against the Motion, and I hope that any other hon. Members who have any respect for realities will do the same.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Mover and Seconder of this Motion flew their aeroplane very skilfully, and when I listened to the Noble Lord he reminded me of the picture of the working man standing at the top of an extremely tottering wall, who looked up at the aeroplane and congratulated himself that he did not belong to a dangerous profession. The Noble Lord's speech was reminiscent of many of his distinguished relatives. There was more than a touch of the delightful humour of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). I do not know whether there was quite as much of his uncle, the Noble Lord who is such a distinguished protagonist at Geneva; but when I heard the full extent
of his speech I thought that eventually he seemed to be coming down on the line of his distinguished grandfather, for "splendid isolation," and that seemed to me perhaps the most dangerous position we could possibly be in at the present time. On the other hand, I was much cheered by the opening of his speech, when he traced the way in which good temper has gradually grown from the time of the Heptarchy, and he looked forward to a time in the somewhat distant future when the whole world would be one State.
I support this Motion exactly because we on this side do hold the view that we have consciously to work with some view of what we think the world should be. I think it is a tragedy that since the War on the whole the forces of nationalism in public opinion have beaten the forces of internationalism, and that all our expedients have been taken rather as expedients to tide us over a short time than as an attempt to build up a world polity suitable to the present age. I regard this suggestion as an essential beginning for a world State. We on this side cannot agree with the objection that has been put forward in Debate on behalf of the Government in this House and in the other House, that to make the work of the League effective is to build up a super-State, and that that cannot be contemplated. We think that you must come to a super-State. The Noble Lord did not take at all an extremist point of view, but I saw a report of a speech by Lord Lloyd the other day which did put the extremist point of view. It is called the Conservative point of view, but of course it is the anarchist point of view.
There are people who teach a doctrine for foreign affairs which they never accept for home affairs, and that is that nations must do what is right in their own minds. The Noble Lord has not taken that line. He agrees that if you have a League of Nations it is the place for settling your disputes. Where I thought his speech broke down was that it did not indicate what was to happen if you could not settle your disputes. The point has been raised of what happened in the case of Japan and China. In that case there was no force to chastise Japan and I do not see that even the Noble Lord's suggestion that, instead of having an international force, you should merely reduce all offensive weapons, would have helped China very much. If a strong
nation is to invade a weak nation and if no one is to come to the assistance of the weak nation, the fact that neither of them has tanks or that both of them have been deprived of big guns will be very cold comfort for the weaker State should the stronger come in and trample over it.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I should have thought that that is just the sort of case where my suggestion would have been effective. If the population of China is, say, 300,000,000, and that of Japan 50,000,000, and if you take away these mechanical appliances from the Japanese, surely that is a case in which the 300,000,000 would make their presence felt.

Mr. ATTLEE: I agree, if the Noble Lord would go far enough but he stops short just at the point, or rather considerably above the point, at which numerical forces count. I agree that if you go back some thousands of years in history you find that then numbers counted. But in this case, while you propose to take away a certain number of offensive weapons, you still propose to allow all kinds of mechanical appliances and you are very far from having reached the point at which mere numbers count. Mere unarmed masses do not count for much against machine guns. I suggest that we have to face the question of how the world is to secure itself from war and I have not yet heard any answer to the question of what is to be done if you have not some sanction by which you can control the supposed right of an indivdual State to do what it will. When in this House we suggested that pressure of some sort should have been brought to bear on Japan we were accused of crying out for war although there were many sanctions short of war which might have been used. The fact is that no sanction was used. I suggest that the unwillingness of anyone apparently to take up the burden of acting on behalf of a League member against a State which had been found to be the aggressor, shows that that method of limited liability has not worked. One is driven not to say, "Let us make the League only a debating society," but to see whether we cannot go a great deal further.
I do not believe much in the limited idea of an international police force
which is to be merely a sort of super-force over a large number of national armies, navies and air forces. We believe that it is necessary to get rid of all national armies, navies and air forces and to substitute an international police force for it. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary cast considerable scorn, some of it quite unjustified, on this idea of an international police force. Those statements were based on their conception that an international police force would only be something to hold in terrorem over a number of armed national states. I do not think you can succeed by that method. You have to go the whole way. I was rather sorry to hear the Seconder of the Resolution suggest that it was no use trying to secure the internationalisation of civil aviation. If you are going to have a national police force and if it is to be an air force, you must internationalise civil aviation and although I am sorry that it may upset the hon. and gallant Member not to be able to ride in British machines—although I do not know why he should be prevented from doing so—I think we must face even that eventuality in the cause of peace.
We ought to envisage the creation of an international police force as a deliberate attempt to build up a world State. I know that a great many points can be raised against it, but, after all, the objections are purely relative. I find the objections to the present system of qualified international anarchy a great deal stronger. The Noble Lord made a good point when he suggested that the kind of objection which is taken to this proposal is the kind of objection which would have been taken a few hundred years ago to many things which we accept to-day. I expect that the ancestors of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) must have objected strongly when their right of private warfare was interfered with by the King. They must have resented the fact that they were no longer allowed to have private forces when the King's peace began to reign instead of a peace maintained by local forces. But that was a necessary process in the building up of the nationalism which has now run so widely throughout the world.
There is a further point which was recalled to my mind by the Noble Lord when he raised the question as between
highly armed nations and nations that are mere masses of men. I believe that, with the progress of invention, the possibilities of having an armed police force for the whole world are much greater than they have ever been before. Even one hundred years ago it was possible to produce armies of a sort with extraordinary rapidity. Consider how Napoleon managed to raise new armies. But those armies were equipped with what we would regard as primitive weapons and followed what is from our point of view primitive methods of fighting. The more science progresses, the more expensive, complicated and difficult becomes the machinery of fighting and the more destructive it becomes to human beings, the more the fact is impressed upon us that we cannot allow these dangerous things to remain in the hands of nations, and that they should be placed under international control.
I do not wish to take up more of the time of the House on a private Member's Motion but I would like to point out that it is very easy to raise difficulties and dangers in relation to such a proposal as this. Yet the difficulties and the dangers which exist in the world to-day are quite as great as any that can be envisaged in connection with an international police force. My final point is this. In the British Empire as it is constituted to-day we have a remarkable example which might be followed. Over a quarter of the earth's surface and its inhabitants are protected to-day by an Imperial police force—that is the British Navy. There are also the armies of the Empire, some of them under the control, it is true, of Dominions who have practical independence in almost every respect. They are, in some cases, composed of men who speak a different language from ours and who are of a different race from us, but they are drilled on a common method of drill, they have a common tradition and they are available for the use of the whole Empire. If you can imagine the extension of that principle, by the development of powerful organisations, such as the organisation of transport in the hands of a federation, you begin to have a picture of the possibilities of a world State. That picture may, of course, be softened in the British Empire by the fact that poor old Great Britain has to pay the bulk of the money. You might have quarrels over the more exact definition of how the burden should be distributed.
But the fact is that this possibility exists, and, looking at it to-day, I think it is the thing to work for. I should like to see the beginning of a proved security made by specific States deliberately trying to create a force with a non-nationalist outlook and with an internationalist esprit de corps which would form the basis for something much greater.

9.26 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I hope that the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) will not think me impertinent if I ask the House to come back to the month of December in the year 1933. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, quite truly, at the beginning of his speech that all nations end all citizens of this country were deeply concerned at the present moment with the whole prospects of international peace, with the whole situation of the League of Nations. We have a Europe torn by controversies and dissension, and to some extent by divergent interests—though I sometimes think that the verbal controversies are more widely divergent than the real interests of those nations. At any rate, that is the situation with which we have to deal. We are not what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) called a mere debating assembly. We are the British House of Commons, charged with presenting a policy. What is the policy that the world needs? It is, at any rate, a broad, consistent and coherent policy which can make a compelling moral appeal to the peoples of the world. Is this Motion going to make that moral appeal, or is it just one of a number of bright ideas which might form part of such an appeal but which in itself cannot unite sentiment or heal differences? Even our own Debate to-night shows that this, of all possible Motions, if it is a proposal with any immediate relevance to the situation before us, is not going to heal and is not going to unite.
May I, in a very few moments—because I am not going to stand in the way of hon. Members on a Private Members' night—say what I have never had an opportunity of saying in this House before? I was, I think, one of the first people in this country to be actively concerned, in a subordinate capacity, with the drafting of the Covenant of the
League and with the elaboration of the ideas of the League. What was in our mind in 1918? There were two ideas: one, the idea of the great co-operative commonwealth of nations, using in international administration in time of peace the experience which we had gained of international administration in time of war, and the other the idea of the armed guarantee of peace. Which of those two ideas was it that made the greatest moral appeal to the people of this country? Why did the people of this country regard the League of Nations, even in those cynical days of disgust shortly after the War—as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle said—as the one good thing which has come out of the War? Cast your mind back to those early months of 1919. The people were not carried away with the idea of the armed guarantee of peace; they were the very men who were clamouring for demobilisation rather than stay one additional week to guarantee the future peace of the Caucasus and Asia Minor. The whole of the settlement of the Near East broke down because at that moment the people of this country, and the people of other countries too, refused to bear the burden any longer of maintaining the peace of the world. I speak with some feeling on this subject; I lost a most disastrous by-election in March, 1919, because, as one young fellow said to me, "I would vote for the Devil himself if he would get me demobilised !"
But those same people were moved by the moral appeal of the League, and it was the moral appeal of that great cooperative commonwealth on which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle poured such scorn. After all, his speech meant this: "I demand that the League shall be a strong executive body for the purpose of levying war, but I refuse to allow it any executive authority for the purpose of organising peace, whether in civil aviation or in any other direction." That was my hon. and gallant Friend's real argument, and that was the real argument which we had to meet at the Peace Conference of Paris and have had to meet ever afterwards. We have indeed, had a Continental thesis of the League, and it is a thesis which has thrown its whole weight and emphasis on the armed guarantee of peace.
I am all for the armed guarantee of peace; it is a fine moral ideal. But what happened at Paris to weaken the moral appeal of that ideal for the people of this country and for the peoples of the world, especially the people of the United States? We saw increasingly that this great ideal of such a guarantee of peace as would make it impossible in any major disturbance in the future for there to be any neutrals in the world, but that all nations should band themselves together against the aggressor, was proving to be attractive to Europe chiefly because Europe was establishing, by the Peace Treaties, an international system based on the narrowest Mazzinian nationalism. That system was splitting Europe up into separate nations claiming independence on the ground of their nationhood, but too small to be able to guarantee their independence against aggression in the future. As the settlement of Europe began to appear to be more arbitrary and insecure, as people in this country and other countries came to realise how very flimsy a basis for nation-making was the mere estimation of percentages of racial population, the demand, led by the French Government, for security grew also, and at the same time the reluctance of other nations to grant these French demands grew also. That has been the deadlock, the trench warfare in which we have been engaged ever since.
I draw a very different conclusion from the history of the League from that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle. To my mind, during the early years of the League, when the League was engaged in a number of the most practical, economic tasks, such as the financial salvaging of countries like Hungary and Austria, the League was strong. During that time security was to some extent in the background, but as those tasks were accomplished and as the disarmament question has come to the fore, the security issue has come to the fore also, and consequently in the last two or three years you have been locked in this trench warfare between, on the one hand, the demand, (which cannot be called now a Continental demand, for it is a demand almost purely from France and certain of the succession States of Europe, but not of Italy and not of Germany) on the one hand this passionate demand for security, which
offer after offer and concession after concession have failed to satisfy, (for, remember, Article 16 in its present form, which does give an absolutely automatic sanction, was originally a concession to that French demand, and Locarno was a concession to that French demand, and none of those concessions or others have satisfied that demand) on the one side that demand, and on the other side the feeling which has at least as great a moral sanction, the feeling of the great mass of the people of this country, the feeling of 90 per cent. of the members of the League of Nations Union itself, I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, the feeling that there is no authority in the British Government to enter into further commitments beyond the Covenant which would throw this country and the lives of citizens of this country into the scale of war against some nation which might merely be designated as the aggressor by a League Assembly.
That is the deadlock you have been in, and I am not arguing on either side of that deadlock, but I do say that if the British House of Commons is to fulfil its part, if His Majesty's Government are to fulfil their part of leaders, for what are we all asking the Government to do? To give a lead not only to us, but to the world. We have already had the cry in the House to-night, "Let not the Government remain silent and leave all the bright ideas to Signor Mussolini." But if we are asking for a lead from His Majesty's Government, surely we ought not to ask them to take that lead merely in the form of a renewed attack on that trench line where so many attacks have failed, and not a novel attack either. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton thought that his opponents were clinging to outworn traditions, but we have been considering international police forces and armed guarantees of peace now for 12 or 14 years, and it has rubbed thin as an idea and is as old as Methuselah. Do you think that by trotting out that idea again you will solve this deadlock and focus the moral sense of Europe upon a new policy which will save the League and ensure peace? Surely not.
My idea—I must not emphasise it—is that there is a moral appeal which you are neglecting to make. If you return to
the old idea of a great co-operative commonwealth of nations, with great administrative and not merely debating duties, for the securing of a peaceful international order, and if you apply that idea to the desperate state of unemployment of Europe and America, a problem which cannot be solved by any of your old national or international policies—if you focus the attention of the nations on that, and restate international policy in those terms, you may then indeed give a lead to Europe which will heal and settle, restore and guarantee peace in a way that none of your international sabre-rattling can ever do.

9.42 p.m.

Major HILLS: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), and to a lesser degree the speech of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), dealt with a world which at present does not exist. If all Europe were united as closely as England, Scotland, and Wales are united, there might be a case for some sort of international force, but does he think that the world is moving in that direction? So far as I can judge, it has turned its back on that direction, for how long I cannot say; but I think that for several years, and perhaps for a whole generation, men's eyes will be turned inwards, and men will look at their own country and develop on those lines; and I may add that by doing so, they will not jeopardise the peace of the world either. But I must not deal with that, because I have several things to say which I want to say as shortly as possible.
I will deal very briefly with the immense practical difficulties involved in an international force of the kind described by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. He did not shirk the question, and he wanted an overwhelming force—army, navy, and air force. First of all, I would remind him that now four great Powers are out of the League, and so his international force would now—and he wanted it now—have to be started with only two great Powers in the League. Secondly, this force of his must have some local habitation. It cannot be up in the air. Therefore, all the contingents have to be stationed somewhere. Either they must be spread about in various parts of the world, in
which case they are liable to sudden attack, or they must be collected together, and then they are not available for the defence of all parts of the world or of Europe. Further, nobody has got over the essential difficulty of placing a body such as the Council of the League, or any Committee of the Council, in charge of an armed force of this character. The conduct of war requires a different sort of action, a different sort of outlook from that possessed by the Council, which has to do work of a different character. You could not get instant action with an international force. It is absurd to suppose it would be any use when action was required immediately for the crisis might have passed before the members of the Council had time to take their tickets to Geneva. It is absurd to suppose that that body could ever be the apt body for war. War is war and peace is peace, and if you want a force it must be suitable for war and it must be commanded by someone who sees war as war.
I come to my real objection. By the setting up of an internatinoal force we should establish a super-state. As the hon. Member for Limehouse said, all the world is to be disarmed and over all the world is to be the League army. I am not prepared yet as an Englishman to put my country in that position. I may be in future, but I would certainly not submit my country to a body which might pass some judgment which conflicted with what I think is right. I am not prepared to go as far as that yet. I believe in the collective system, and I have worked for it, but nothing is so dangerous as going beyond what is possible. I do not suppose that the name of Bismarck will carry great weight with my hon. Friends opposite or with the Labour party, but he said a very wise thing when he stated that the most dangerous thing in politics was long views. They are very dangerous, and I am not prepared yet to see my country subjected to an armed super-state that would do practically what it liked with it. But perhaps more than that is the consideration which has just been stated by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). I believe in the moral force of the League of Nations supported, when called upon, by the armed forces of all the Powers that compose the League. I believe that
the League is much stronger by keeping free from armd force.
Is not the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton disregarding the slow process that must take place before we really reach a peaceful world? Both he and I want to see the rule of law. I do not know whether we shall live to see it, but we shall not hasten that time by destroying the instrument through which it will be brought about. On looking round the world, I believe that if this country shows a lead a much more peaceful world is possible than we have thought possible lately. I believe that things have got to such a pitch that anyone would welcome a move that would go a long way towards removing a condition of affairs in Europe where everybody is looking over his shoulder. We need great patience, and we should not mind setbacks. Do not let us forget that the League as it is can experience reversals. It had a reversal in the case of Japan, but its force was not impaired thereby for those who can keep their prospective. He who draws the sword must abide by the arbitrament of the sword. Some day some power or combination of powers might destroy the League army. It is no use saying, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) said, that the League army would be so strong that it could not be defeated. The world has known many armies but none have been invincible, and we must look to the possibility of the League force being destroyed. Then the League itself would be destroyed. We in this country are profoundly peaceful. I have never known since the War a time when the idea of peace has had a stronger hold on the people of this country than now. I like to think that other countries are the same. I suggest that we should not go in for this force, but should rather trust to the slow spread of the spirit of peace.

9.63 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: Consideration for the convenience of hon. Members shall impose brevity on the observations I shall address to the House, yet I hope that the House will find such observations as I may offer not without interest to it. This Debate has been a beautiful example of the operation of national principles in our proceedings. We have had a Motion proposed by the hon. Member for East
Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), a Liberal, and seconded by so stout a Tory as the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears). As one hon. Member truly said, it is not a party question, and so, as it seems to me, any Member belonging to any party is at liberty to express a strong view on one side or the other of the question without embarrassment. One would gather from the somewhat naked state of the benches that this is regarded by the House as a somewhat academic subject. I cannot take that view, and I think that the House as a whole does not really take that view. I have no doubt that if the supporters of the Motion had their way, the result would he anything but academic. The House, I think, is at a certain advantage in discussing this question. It is perfectly true that it is not an entirely new matter; but comparatively little has been said or written upon it in. the last few years and therefore we come to the subject with relatively fresh minds. At least I think I am right in saying that this particular topic has not been considered, in the form in which it now comes before it, by the House.
Let me for a few moments play the part of the aggressor. There is no difficulty to-night in the definition of the aggressor so far as I am concerned. I am going to ask the House boldly to oppose this Motion. The subject can be considered under two aspects—under the aspect of practicality and under the aspect of principle. The House may ask in the first place, is this proposal a practical one; and in the second, is it right in principle? On the first question I have very few remarks to offer, but I hope I shall be allowed to say that I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle have dealt somewhat too lightly with the practical aspects of the whole question. I think the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton made a very sincere and courageous effort to deal with the practical difficulties of the matter, but I had a feeling at the end of his speech that those difficulties had been to great for him. He considered a number of practical points; for instance, the question whether the international police force would ever suffer defeat. He brushed aside, as I thought somewhat airily, the suggestion that it ever would be beaten, but I cannot
accept his assurance so readily. He seemed to be very easily satisfied that the international police force never would suffer defeat, but I am not so sure upon that point, and I think the House as a whole is not so sure. On the point of the command of the international police force he had to admit that in a crisis all officers belonging to an aggressor party would be automatically suspended, and also that no national belonging to any of the great Powers would be considered for command. When we have eliminated officers belonging to the great Powers and officers belonging to an aggressor party, we have eliminated a certain number of very important persons. He dealt briefly with another practical point. He said machines would be available in every country. But is he so certain that the machines, being distributed among different countries, would not at the moment of crisis be detained and commandeered by the Governments of those countries? Is he so very certain that they would be available for the service of the League of Nations?
But I will continue no further the examination of the practical aspect of the matter. I content myself with saying that they are very great, they are not easily superable; and even if the question of principle did not have to be considered at all, the very fact that the practical aspect of the matter is an extremely difficult one seems to me to bear upon the question of principle. If you have a principle which is right in itself, the practical application of which is nevertheless extremely difficult, you cannot really separate the two aspects of the matter from each other.
Let me now consider the real question of principle. Is this proposal right in itself? The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) has touched upon the point that I want to make and touched upon it very clearly, but I desire to drive his argument beyond the point at which he left it. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton describes his force as an international police force: but what exactly is the import, the meaning of the word "police" in this connection? Has he really altered the quality of this force or affected the quality of it by describing it as a police force? I suggest that he has done nothing of the sort. At least I will argue first upon that supposition. Is not his pro-
posal merely a proposal for the establishment of an international force for the maintenance of law and order? He began his speech by arguing the necessity of force to the maintenance of the rule of law. I think he hardly required to argue that point in this House. The use of force is necessary. But, then, is there any real difference between his so-called police force and any force composed, it may be, of military, naval and aerial forces? I will suppose that there is no difference. But surely it must be apparent to the hon. Member that he has already this very thing in Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. He spoke at one point of putting teeth into the system of the preservation of peace: but the teeth are already there. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said that we must have some sanctions. I asked myself, as I listened to the two hon. Members, what had happened to Article 16? Was it not present to their minds? Already there is provision for the use of force in Article 16, and surely it is a somewhat ominous and curious fact that Article 16 has never yet been employed by the nations of the world. No one has yet dared to utilise that part of the Covenant. But if there is no real difference between the hon. Member's force and an ordinary military, naval or aerial force, then I say he already has all he wants in Article 16.
Let me consider the other supposition. It may be that there is something else in the mind of the hon. Member. I think the House should ask itself whether there is really another principle underlying this proposal, which justifies the use of the distinguishing word "police." I am going to suggest that if there is such other principle in the mind of the hon. Member, it is one to which he cannot appeal. The function of police is the maintenance of law and order by the exercise of the authority of a sovereign government. But the League of Nations is not a sovereign government. He did not himself dare to describe it as a sovereign government. He called it "a new form of alliance" for certain purposes, and the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle said, "I do not believe any of us really want a super-State." That is to say, "I do not believe that any of us really want a sovereign government in the League.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle said that policemen are at the back of Parliament and of the law courts in this country. Yes, officers of the law exercising the authority of a sovereign government. Really the hon. Member who moved the Motion was afraid of the logical consequences of his own idea. If his proposal is for the establishment of a real police force, then this force imports a sovereign government in the League. There is no such sovereign government in the League. I leave him on the horns of a dilemma. Either his principle is already in Article It of the Covenant; or if it is not in Article 16 of the Covenant, then it is a false principle.
Finally, I ask the House whether this is the moment at which to urge this revolutionary proposal? The League has fallen upon difficult days. The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle himself said that the Council, constituted as it is at present, cannot command or administer this force, and he was driven to argue the necessity of reorganisation of the Council. Surely this is the worst time at which to urge upon the nations of the world a proposal so revolutionary. Well may the League of Nations cry, "Save, oh save me from my friends." In view of the considerations that I have set before it I ask the House to reject the Motion.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott), who has just delivered so interesting a speech, expressed apprehension that the international police force might suffer defeat in the field from the forces of some sovereign Power. He should recognise that a pre-requisite of any such scheme as an international police force must necessarily be a large measure of general disarmament on the part of the heavily-armed Powers, and, in particular, general disarmament of the aerial forces of the Powers involved. Otherwise you might get a position of crisis between the enormously strong international force and the forces comparably strong belonging to sovereign Powers. He argued that within the Covenant of the League of Nations there existed "teeth," and he mentioned Article 16. A moment arrived during the history of the last two years when the sanctions implicit within that Article might certainly have been applied. They
were not applied, and for two reasons, that they were not automatic, and that the signatory Powers to the Covenant of the League were not prepared to use them automatically.
At the end of his speech he doubted—and this is a common argument on the part of those who object to the suggestion in the Motion—whether this was the moment to put the suggestion forward. I thought that I detected in what he said an echo of the eloquent speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) who, at the beginning of his observations, said that the Mover and Seconder were living in a world which does not exist. That is certainly true. If this proposal were carried into effect, it would necessarily change the complexion and the conduct of the world. To change the political behaviour of the world would be the result of a long series of international adjustments, and assuredly we should get a different world if we had some regional international police arrangement like this; we should certainly get a different Europe. He went on to say that he would not submit his country to control by an international police.

Major HILLS: I said "by force." I accept the control of the Covenant of the League.

Mr. ADAMS: I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. That objection on his part precisely epitomises the difficulty of any sort of international progress. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to accept the Rule of Law, and then he said, "provided that we were not too impatient to establish it." My answer is that we can no longer accept the proposition "My country, right or wrong." Any country which is sufficiently strongly armed can ignore and disregard the Rule of Law, provided that it possesses in its own hands a sufficiently overwhelming sanction of force. The rulers of any country, and even of our own country, may be guilty of political immorality, just as individual citizens may be guilty of crime.
I now refer, with the greatest possible respect, to the speech delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who urged the House to face the immediate realities—to come down, as he said, to December, 1933. He exactly described the situation in Decem-
ber, 1933—a Europe torn with controversies and dissension. He would probably concede to me that, as things are at the present time, we have no security against an explosion which may efface civilisation. He said that we were the British House of Commons, and not a debating society. I agree with him, and I think that in this great and incomparable Chamber we ought to seek to evolve some method by which we can preserve civilisation, which is presented with this possibility of effacement. He dealt with what I admit is the highest question of all, the moral purpose which underlies the League, and the moral sanctions with which the League should operate. The proposal now before the House has behind it and underlying it the highest moral purpose in the world. Briefly stated, it is that we want to inaugurate a reign of justice to the exclusion of the arbitrary will of sovereign states. He mentioned the structure of the League of Nations. If I have time I want to refer to one or two of the girders of the framework of the League of Nations, for whose architecture he claims, I think with just pride, some responsibility.
I want to join issue with the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne). I congratulate him on his very skilful misapprehensions of the Motion which we are discussing. He objected to the phrase, "international police force." I admit that the phrase is not particularly euphonious, and I can suggest an alternative name for this force—this sanction—but I am afraid that it is just as cacophonous. I suggest "automatic sanction." Directly he started his speech he stated that this notion has captivated the minds of the public. I presume he admits that the attraction has operated here and abroad, and therefore it is likely that the force would have behind it the very necessary measure of moral authority which he thought an indispensable attribute to an international police force. In any case it is hardly holding a pistol to the temple of His Majesty's Government to invite them to express
their willingness to consider the formation of an international police force,
and so on—as the Motion runs. The Government may consider anything; if some of the answers to questions to Ministers are any test, His Majesty's Government must spend most of their time giving to all sorts of proposals their serious,
vigilant and earnest consideration. He said that police bombing was objected to on humanitarian grounds. I admit that there is a case against police bombing on those grounds, but, if he were here, he would probably concede that I was rather vehement in the course of the summer in my objections to this police bombing reservation. My primary objection to police bombing or bombing of any kind being in the hands of any sovereign Power, is that the sovereign Power would be liable at any moment and in any situation to be imitated by some other sovereign Power; and this terribly sharp and swift weapon is, in my submission, too dangerous and too swift in its operation to be left in the hands of any single arbitrary sovereign Power, and still less in the hands of several individual sovereign Powers. There would, of course, be no rushing into Armageddon on the part of the Powers who contributed their quota to this international police force, because this police force would in itself constitute a deterrent against aggression. The Noble Lord said that the British view was in general opposition to this scheme, and yet at the beginning of his speech he said that it had captivated the minds of the public. It is very difficult to reconcile those two contradictory statements.
In the very brief time that I am going to consume—and I want to give way to some other Member before the Minister replies—I would like to submit to the House the reasons why I have, with great reluctance, and, indeed, in the early stages with a certain measure of horror, come round to a conviction in agreement with the proposal that has been put before the House to-day. My conviction is entirely due to the course of events in the Far East, and the multitude of evil consequences that have flowed from it. In my view the Sino-Japanese dispute, and the way in which it was allowed to drift and then to be forgotten—to lapse into oblivion as regards European memory—constitutes one of the ugliest precedents in international history since 1918. I immediately disown any facetious suggestion that might be made that I wish to go to war with Japan. Indeed, in a speech that I made with great presumption in this Chamber on the 27th February of this year, I expressly disowned such a suggestion. But let the House observe
this: In spite of the fact that there were sanctions available, not a single one of those perfectly bloodless sanctions was set in motion against the aggressor State. The League of Nations showed itself to be as impotent as the Courts of the Old Bailey would be without the Metropolitan Police behind them. Not a single Ambassador was withdrawn from Tokyo; there was no generally applied embargo on the export of arms to Japan alone; no step was taken to establish a general refusal to accept imports from Japan.
But now that the conduct of Japan has developed from a mere infringement of international law into a visible threat against our commercial interests, one hears many novel sentiments in many surprising quarters against Japan. Japan, in fact, showed that with impunity, in spite of the League of Nations and in spite of Article 16, a State can, so to speak, spurn the conference table and plunge a dagger into the vitals of the collective organisation for peace. I would ask this House to reflect what might happen in Europe if we were presented with a situation analogous to the Manchurian situation. That seems to me to be the whole heart of the discussion to-night. Supposing that there is no better guarantee than now exists that the various States Members of the League will act collectively in the interests of law and civilisation, I suggest that the inevitable result must be a collision between heavily armed sovereign States, with the inevitable climax of the destruction and effacement of European civilisation.
In one moment I am going to sit down. But I wanted to deal at greater length with the alternative solution which is sometimes suggested, namely, unilateral re-armament. I was going, with great respect, to mention some resolutions passed by a certain conference at which unfortunately I was unable to be present, and I should like, in passing, to dissociate myself from the oracular, swashbuckling mugwumpery of Lord Lloyd. One hears sometimes that this country has, in the matter of disarmament, reached the edge of risk. It is repeated as a kind of talisman by very responsible persons as if an argument were clinched by the mere ejaculation of a slogan, whereas the phrase means nothing, because every nation in the world says precisely the same thing. France re-
gards herself as ringed with edges of risk. Indeed, the same conviction animates the mind of Germany as anyone can see who chooses to read the propaganda that issues from Nazi headquarters. In any case the man in the street is not impressed with "the edge of risk" when we are spending £200 a minute on armaments. If we look on this problem of security from the basis of national and insular security, we must realise that we could not resist any possible combination of foreign Powers who are collectively spending £2,000 a minute against our £200 on instruments of destruction. By no increase of our Air Force could we secure national and insular security. Ten or 12 extra squadrons—what could they do? Even Lord Rothermere's modest little proposal of 5,000 to 10,000 extra machines becomes quite inadequate when one considers that any future war will be three-dimensional and not one or two-dimensional as former wars were. If you wish to protect yourself against bombing aeroplanes, you have to raise the number of the attacking force to the power of two or three if you want effectually to defend yourself. The most certain way to get national bankruptcy would be to take the advice of Lord Rothermere and certain other persons who believe that you can achieve security by increasing the national armaments and doubling the Navy, and soon we should realise the Socialist ambition of a £1,000,000,000 Budget.
I want to deal with two objections that might be raised against this proposal. The Foreign Secretary the other night, dealing with this same topic, used the word "Utopian." "Utopian" I am told, means existing nowhere. I suppose at one time the emancipation of the slaves was a Utopian proposition. The law itself once emerged from the mists of Utopia. A good many of the objections and difficulties which are advanced in opposition to this scheme are frivolous and not worthy of consideration. At all events, I suggest that the House ought to face the otherwise insuperable alternative to the control and canalisation of force. We know from the words of so great an authority as the Lord President of the Council that, when the next war comes, European civilisation will be wiped out, and by no force more than the air force. I suggest that
the Air Force in itself presents a tremendous opportunity for forming an international police force.
I should like to deal with the two points, Who will command such a force and, Where will it be quartered? Quite clearly, command of an international police force must be limited to a specified short period of time, and, quite clearly, it should be quartered in the territories of States which are admittedly not obnoxious. There are various possible States—for instance, in Scandinavia. Clearly, if you were to station it in France, Germany or Great Britain those tremendously powerful individual States would have immediately under their control an overwhelming force by which they could implement their will against the interests of all. On the other hand, if you were to place it in one of the less powerful States, you would immediately have a guarantee against that contingency. My hon. Friend below me says "Switzerland." I can imagine many less fruitful suggestions than that. I am thinking primarily of this as a regional European question. [Interruption.] My facetious friend on my left flank is trying to draw a red herring across the Debate when he mutters Kamschatka, China or Japan. He might as well fling out the word "Utopia."
The usual objection to this new reform—and it is a very drastic and radical reform—in the direction of international co-operation is that before you have any international scheme such as this, the various nations of the world must evince a change of heart. I am convinced that His Majesty's Government, and, indeed, the Governments of other countries of the world, simply do not realise to what a large extent that change of heart among the ordinary individual citizens has come about already. The Governments of the world do not seem to understand that, now that the surface of the world is contracted through our mechanical inventions, aeroplanes, wireless, television, and the like, there is not a single Englishman, Japanese, Russian, or German in a thousand who wishes against any individual foreigner any violence whatsoever. War and its preparations are kept alive by nationally-minded politicians of the various States of the world and by sections
of the Press. They are the organs which foster fear. Very often we have heard on the Floor of this House various motives attributed to our soldiers who gave their lives in the War between 1914 and 1918, and perhaps I shall not be entirely presumptious if I suggest that they went to their death largely in order to make Might and Right mean the same thing. I believe that by a proposal such as that which is before the House to-night there is a chance of uniting and of making identical those two elements in the affairs of the world. At all events, I entreat His Majesty's Government not to slam the door in the face of a proposal such as this which may, in my view, go a long way towards inaugurating a reign of justice between the nations of the world.

10.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE BRABAZON: There are, no doubt, many things which are required internationally, but there is undoubtedly one thing which is required in this House, and that is a method of talking shortly. We have promised the Minister that he should be able to speak at half-past ten, and, far from developing any argument, I should only like to draw attention to the fact that on a private Member's Motion such as this we have had no less than four speeches of over half-an-hour.

10.28 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I think that the House will appreciate, whatever the length of some of the speeches, that the subject which the hon. Member has brought before the House is one of very considerable interest, and that he brought it before us in a speech both reasoned and reasonable. Perhaps the part of his speech which most appealed to me was that in which he was good enough to praise the United Kingdom Draft Convention. I was only sorry that, having delivered himself of that address, he thought it necessary somewhat to diminish its purport by complaining that we were only sitting still and doing nothing. I should have thought that the Draft Convention itself was a sufficient answer to that charge I do not believe that any Member of the House will question the utility of the discussion which we have had this evening but I agree that we must, more particu-
larly in the times in which we now work, distinguish carefully between the ideal and the immediate objective; between general aspirations and practical work. If that is true generally, it is more than ever true to-day when the whole structure of international consultation is being severely stressed, and when those supporting the League of Nations are fewer and less enthusiastic than we should wish, and when the League itself is threatened with a serious loss of membership.
The hon. Member who moved the Resolution is a sincere believer in the League of Nations, so am I, so is His Majesty's Government. Successive Governments in this country have founded their foreign policy on support of the League of Nations, and I hope that future Governments will continue to do so. It is just because we are sincere believers in the League of Nations that a special responsibility rests upon us to ensure that we do not overstrain the structure, especially at a time when it is having extra burdens placed upon it from various causes. For my part I am not personally opposed to the ideal of an international police force. It may be that the day will come when such a force will be not only an ideal but a useful actuality. It may be that it will ultimately become the normal accompaniment of the machinery of world peace, but that time is not to-day nor, so far as I can judge, is it likely to be in the near future. I will tell the House as briefly as I can one or two of the reasons why I believe that the time is not now. In putting the difficulties before the House I hope that the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) will believe me when I say that they are not frivolous. Indeed, if these difficulties are not faced and overcome it will be quite impossible to transform the ideals of an international police force into anything like a practical policy.
What is the conception of an international police force? Is it to function in an armed world or in a disarmed world? On this issue there have been to-day two different points of view. Certainly, the Seconder, and I understood also the Mover, of the Resolution thought that it might to some extent come into force to-day, whereas the hon. Member who spoke for the Labour party quite clearly stated that his policy was a dis-
armed world first. Let me seek to deal with the first conception, that an international police force is a practical proposition to-day. The usual conception of such a force is the conception of the hon. Member for West Leeds—an air force. What weapon is that air force to use? I presume that one of the most effective as well as one of the most denounced weapons of the air force is the bomb. I do not know that I should feel the happier in smithereens as the result of an international rather than as the result of a national bomb. However that may be, the effectiveness of an international air police force to-day would be extremely limited in range.
I am certain, and I do not think there can be any question on the part of anyone who has studied this problem, that if you were to try to introduce an international police force into the world as it is to-day it would have to be a super-force composed of all arms—Air, Navy and Land. It would require bases; it would be commanded by whom, and staffed from what nationality? The hon. Member who opened the Debate said that he did not think we should stress the national difficulty. I do not want to do that, but he knows and I know the difficulties there are at Geneva to-day in choosing the nationals of countries for comparatively insignificant purposes. What would be the situation when we were attempting to choose the chief of staff of an international air force? Believe me, I am not putting these criticisms in a destructive sense; they are constructive criticisms which have to be faced. Suppose you create this force, suppose your staff exists, a staff must have plans. Plans if they are to be effective must be considered beforehand. What is going to happen? The representatives of countries, A, B and C are going to sit round a table and work out plans for dealing with infractions by A, B or C. What are the representatives of the countries going to do? Is the representative of country A going to sit there while plans for bombing his capital are worked out or is he going to withdraw reluctantly from the room and return with alacrity to work out plans for bombing the capital of country B? These are factors which, if you attempt to work out these plans in the world as it is to-day, have to be faced.
And conceive the multiplicity of these plans. I am told that the working out of the plans for use against one country for one specific campaign requires innumerable considerations, geographical, climatic, political, strategical and tactical. Who is going to give the political direction on which these plans are to be based? I understand that the first thing a general staff asks is that the Government should give it a working assumption upon which it is to function. Who is going to do that? I presume that the Council of the League of Nations is going to give instructions covering the whole world, because it is not possible to limit the operation of this force. It must be universal or it cannot exist at all. And if it is to be universal just conceive what a task awaits the Council in drafting plans to meet the various military situations which will arise. If they do not draft these plans an international police force is absolutely useless; indeed, it is worse than useless; it is a dangerous instrument. The conception of course is not new. We have had some examples and I should like to give one. The Holy Roman Empire attempted to maintain its forces by drawing contingents from each of its member States, and those who have read Carlyle will recollect the sequence of disastrous failures which resulted from that attempt.
Even if the plans could be worked out, could they be carried out? If hon. Members will study the causes of the outbreaks of war during the last century only they will be interested to find how on almost every occasion the particular assumptions underlying an international police force could not work. What is the lesson? It is not that there can never be an international police force, but that there can only be an international police force in a disarmed world, and in a world which is disarmed far below the level of the present day. The Motion, therefore, is premature and unpractical, and because of this even undesirable.
There is another consideration which I should like to put to the House. The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) spoke no word more than the truth when he said that the whole assumption upon which an international police force rests is that
there should be a definition of the aggressor. If you are going to have an international police force you must first determine against whom you are going to use it, and, as that is a matter for international decision, there must be a definition of the aggressor. It is not necessary for me to enter again into the various reasons why in my judgment an attempt to define the aggressor has so far failed. We are fully aware of the contending points of view, and I enter this caveat that it is by no means a universal Latin conception that the aggressor can be defined. The most effective denunciation of an attempt to define an aggressor was given by a distinguished Italian jurist who recently died, Signor Scialoja. I believe that the fundamental misconception behind the attempt to define an aggressor goes very deep.
It is sometimes helpful to look to the past to see if we can gain guidance for the present. Polybius, the historian, of whom a Frenchman once said that he was a historian for statesmen and thinkers, remarks that the historians of his day fell into error as to the causes of war, because he said, "They do not keep a firm hold between a pretext and a cause, or again between a pretext and a beginning of war." I believe that to be fundamentally true. Wars break out perhaps or probably because of some long-standing secular dispute. Eventually one party or the other is so exasperated that a pretext is created. That is just the danger of an artificial definition, because it may fail to distinguish between the cause and the pretext. If hon. Members will apply however skilfully worded a definition to outbreaks of war in the last century, they will find some curious results. I confess I have been unable to find one case where the most popular definition of the aggressor has defined the nation which actually did aggress.
I have mentioned that because I do fear that these attempts, sincere though they may be, will result not in peace but in political manoeuvre. Generally on the subject of this Resolution might I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member who moved it that he might perhaps
follow the very excellent advice which was given to him on this matter a few days ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who I believe is the leader whom he usually follows? Indeed, the entangled relationships and divided allegiances of the members of the Liberal party who have not the fortune to follow my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, are no bad illustration of the difficulties that might beset an international police force. The attempt to move in military formation even within the circumscribed limits of this Chamber, from one side of the House to another, shall we say with reasonable synchronisation, has resulted, I fear, in the right hon. Gentleman losing some stragglers.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Very few.

Mr. EDEN: All these things are only relative. Some stragglers he has lost. To-night he has also some scouts who do not listen perhaps as they should to their master's voice. The hon. Member, I am afraid, is too ready and too rash and does not listen to his leader's bugle. I know that the note is not always easy to distinguish, but on this occasion there can be no mistaking it. The House listened with interest. He sounded the retreat away from the hon. Members on the Labour benches. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
I believe that this proposal—[an international police force]—would not assist the League but greatly hinder it.
Then again later, in the course of his speech, believing, as I suppose that all good argument consists in stating the case that you are going to make, stating it, and then stating that you have stated it, he said this:
This proposal would try the League too high, and I, who am a convinced adherent of League policy and regard the establishment of the League as by far the greatest event in the modern history of mankind, would strongly deprecate the advocacy of this proposal, for I believe so far from helping, it would do the League of Nations injury at the present stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1933; col. 612, Vol. 281.]
That view is mine also and if on this occasion I agree with the leader and not with the follower, I hope it may encourage the Mover of this Motion in the
light of the most interesting Debate which we have had to withdraw that Motion. Certainly, for my part I could not vote for it and, if it went to a Division, I should have to vote against it because I share the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen that it is not in the interests at present of the League itself. Can we not put first things first? We are now engaged upon an attempt to secure world agreement upon a limitation of armaments, desiring thereby to strengthen the structure of peace. Surely that in itself is an immensely formidable task. Do not let us confuse it by the introduction of other issues which we may be able to face later but which themselves only complicate our task to-day. That task is hard enough already. If we ever realise a measure of success, as we hope we may, which would give new confidence to the world the time may then come when a Resolution such as this might be useful and appropriate. In the meantime, I would hope that the whole House would assist the Government in its immediate task and not, by the Resolution, make it more difficult.

Mr. MANDER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to deal with the one point which I put as a practical issue before the House, that is the question of the use of a force under the League of Nations for dealing with civil aircraft which had been converted and used as bombers? That question was considered by the Disarmament Conference in the early days of this year.

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member himself rightly described our Draft Convention. The purpose of that is to work out, if we can a scheme, for the control of civil aviation. If that scheme were successful and were made watertight the abolition of naval and military air forces would follow. Therefore, the question of what I think might be called a sanction force which he has in mind would not arise at all. Pending the working out of such a scheme, our proposal is for reduction in numbers, which I think myself is perhaps more practical than the idea which the hon. Member has at the moment.

Mr. MANDER: In responding to the hon. Gentleman's appeal may I say that he has given a really sympathetic reply
in which he has declared himself a supporter of the idea of an international police force? In view of that fact I beg to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Report of Debates and to inquire into the expenditure on Stationery and Printing for this House and the public services generally.

Mr. Bernays, Mr. Clarry, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. Hall-Caine, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Kerr, Mr. Lunn, Sir Basil Peto, Dr. Salter, Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman, Pear-Admiral Sueter, and Mr. Charles Williams nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Batey, Sir Edward Campbell, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Curry, Mr. David Davies, Sir Percy Harris, Sir Percy Hurd, Brigadier-General Makins, Dr. McLean, Miss Pickford, Mr. Savery, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Templeton, and Mr. James Purdon Thomas nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.